US deports criminals to African nation where political parties banned
The South Sudanese government has declined to say where those men, also described as violent criminals, are after it took custody of them nearly two weeks ago.
In a late-night post on X, homeland security assistant secretary Tricia McLaughlin said the men sent to Eswatini, who are citizens of Vietnam, Jamaica, Cuba, Yemen and Laos, had arrived on a plane but did not say when or where.
She said they were all convicted criminals and 'individuals so uniquely barbaric that their home countries refused to take them back'.
The men 'have been terrorising American communities' but were now 'off of American soil', McLaughlin claimed.
She said they had been convicted of crimes including murder and child rape and one was a 'confirmed' gang member. Her social media posts included mug shots of the men and what she said were their criminal records. They were not named.
Like in South Sudan, there was no immediate comment from Eswatini authorities over any deal to accept third-country deportees or what would happen to them in that country.
Civic groups there raised concerns over the secrecy from a government long accused of clamping down on human rights.
'There has been a notable lack of official communication from the Eswatini government regarding any agreement or understanding with the US to accept these deportees,' Ingiphile Dlamini, a spokesperson for the pro-democracy group SWALIMO, said in a statement sent to The Associated Press.
'This opacity makes it difficult for civic society to understand the implications.'
It was not clear if they were being held in a detention centre, what their legal status was or what Eswatini's plans were for the deported men, he said.
Eswatini, previously called Swaziland, is a country of about 1.2 million people between South Africa and Mozambique. It is one of the world's last remaining absolute monarchies and the last in Africa. King Mswati III has ruled by decree since 1986.
Political parties are effectively banned and pro-democracy groups have said for years that Mswati III has crushed political dissent, sometimes violently. Groups like SWALIMO have called for democratic reforms.
Pro-democracy protests erupted in Eswatini in 2021, when dozens were killed, allegedly by security forces. Eswatini authorities have been accused of conducting political assassinations of pro-democracy activists and imprisoning others.
Because Eswatini is a poor country with a relative lack of resources, it 'may face significant strain in accommodating and managing individuals with complex backgrounds, particularly those with serious criminal convictions', Mr Dlamini said.
While the US administration has hailed deportations as a victory for the safety and security of the American people, Mr Dlamini said his organization wanted to know the plans for the five men sent to Eswatini and 'any potential risks to the local population'.
The Trump administration has said it is seeking more deals with African nations to take deportees from the US.
Leaders from some of the five West African nations who met President Donald Trump at the White House last week said the issue of migration and their countries possibly taking deportees from the US was discussed.
Some nations have pushed back. Nigeria, which was not part of that White House summit, said it has rejected pressure from the US to take deportees who are citizens of other countries.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ITV News
9 minutes ago
- ITV News
Trump's 25% tariff on India exposes cracks in Modi friendship and threatens economic growth
In his latest diplomatic broadside, Donald Trump's decision to slap a 25% tariff on key Indian exports - combined with a provocative tweet teasing a new trade deal with Pakistan - has triggered not only economic alarm in India but also political unease for Prime Minister Narendra Modi, whose once-touted personal rapport with Trump now appears to be under strain. 'India has been taking advantage of the US for far too long. Time for a level playing field. New deal with Pakistan coming soon. Much fairer," the US President posted on Truth Social earlier this week. '25% tariff now live on Indian medical imports. American jobs matter more than cheap Indian drugs. Too much going to Russia, not fair to us!' The sudden tariff hike, targeting Indian pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and textiles, comes amid simmering friction between the two countries and has sent shockwaves through both the Indian diplomatic and business communities. India's Ministry of Commerce & Industry responded cautiously, saying it had 'taken note' of the US President's remarks and was 'studying their implications.' The ministry reaffirmed India's ongoing commitment to concluding a 'fair, balanced, and mutually beneficial' bilateral trade agreement with Washington. Indian business leaders, however, have not held back. Harsh Vardhan Agarwal, President of the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI), called the tariff imposition 'disappointing,' warning it would dent export performance and undermine the hard-won trust between the two economies. 'This move is unfortunate and will undoubtedly impact our exporters,' Mr Agarwal said. 'We still believe the two countries can arrive at a comprehensive trade deal that benefits both sides.' Adding to New Delhi's discomfort is Trump's recent and controversial claim that he helped mediate a ceasefire during the latest flare-up on the borders, a statement India has neither confirmed nor directly rebutted. The ambiguity has invited criticism in India. What has made the situation more politically volatile is Prime Minister Modi's long-standing public embrace of Trump. Their joint appearances at 'Howdy Modi' in Houston and 'Namaste Trump' in Ahmedabad were projected as symbols of a thriving personal and strategic alliance. That narrative is now under scrutiny. With Trump turning publicly confrontational, India's opposition parties have pounced. They are demanding that Modi push back against Trump's remarks on the ceasefire and take a firmer line against the tariffs, accusing the government of compromising national dignity for diplomatic optics. Meanwhile, the Indian medical and pharmaceutical sectors, among the worst affected, have voiced strong objections. Dilip Kumar, Chairman of the Medical Tourism division at the Chamber of Commerce, told Indian media that Trump was attempting to 'kill the market of the Indian economy.' 'But that's not going to happen,' Mr Kumar said. 'The American market is dependent on Indian and Chinese suppliers. The real losers will be the US patients, not Indian exporters.' He added that India would now look to strengthen its trade relationships with Europe and other regions. 'We are resilient. We survive and bounce back - even in the toughest times.' For New Delhi, the challenge now is how to safeguard its economic interests without triggering an open confrontation, especially with a leader who rarely pulls his punches, even with friends.
Daily Record
39 minutes ago
- Daily Record
Scots soldier charged with murdering wife in Australia 'previously had affair'
Graeme Davidson faces a murder charge after his wife Jacqueline Davidson drowned while the couple were kayaking. A Scot accused of killing his wife while kayaking in Australia had previously cheated on her, a court has heard. In May this year, Graeme Davidson, 55, originally from Glasgow was charged with his wife Jacqueline Davidson's murder. He was also charged with fraud and attempted fraud, in relation to insurance claims he made totalling more than almost half a million pounds. In November 2020, the couple were kayaking on Lake Samsonvale without life jackets when she reportedly fell into the water and drowned. Her death was initially considered an accident; however, a homicide investigation was launched about 18 months later. Mr Davidson, who had relocated to Thailand and re married a resident there, was later arrested during a visit to Brisbane. On Thursday, his lawyer made an application for bail in the Supreme Court, where he submitted it was a "fundamentally weak Crown case". Craig Eberhardt told the court it was not in dispute that Mrs Davidson had drowned, but it was contested that his client deliberately caused her death. "There are no eyewitnesses who claim to have seen [Mr Davidson] drowning his wife or indeed behaving suspiciously," he said. The court heard Mr Davidson told police his wife had fallen into the water shortly after he had stood up in his kayak, which caused her to panic. He then told police he saw her struggling, so he entered the water, which was dark and had branches and weeds beneath the surface, to pull her out, the court heard. He said he was witnessed by members of the public and paramedics trying to resuscitate her, and some later told police Mr Davidson had worked "tirelessly to save [Mrs Davidson's] life". "He was observed by various people as being distressed, shocked and upset," he said. Mr Eberhardt told the court Mrs Davidson did not have any injuries consistent with being assaulted or being involved in any sort of struggle. "Quite simply … there is no direct evidence that [Mr Davidson] killed Jacqueline," he said. The court heard Mr Davidson, who had been married to Mrs Davidson for decades, had no criminal history and had never been the subject of a domestic violence order. The couple had been living together, but police earlier said they would allege the relationship had broken down. At the time of his wife's death, the court heard he had recently been medically discharged from the Australian Arm y, where he served as a major, and before that, he was a captain in the British Army. The court heard that during a posting in Papua New Guinea in 2018, Mr Davidson had an affair with a local woman, which Mrs Davidson became aware of in 2019. Mr Eberhardt told the court this had caused "significant matrimony upset" at that time, and as a result, the couple returned to Australia shortly after. "Although it can be accepted that [Mrs Davidson] was very upset, understandably about her husband's infidelity," he said. "There is in fact no evidence of ongoing dispute or domestic disharmony, let alone domestic violence in 2020." The court heard there were a number of witness statements that had been submitted from people who knew the couple, including their children and friends. Parts of some of their statements were read to the court, including one made by a friend of Mrs Davidson whom she confided in shortly after the affair. The court heard she had suggested ending the marriage at the time, but later said she did not wish to do so. A statement was also submitted by one of their daughters, who was living with her parents at the time of her mother's death. The court heard she told police she had also been invited to go kayaking with them on the day. "Seems a remarkable thing to do if he intended to drown her," Mr Eberhardt said. The court heard the daughter also told police her mother seemed happy, her usual self, and she had never witnessed any domestic violence between her parents. She also told police her mother had a previous heart issue, had choking issues, and would often get flustered and panic. The court heard in a statement from a friend of the couple, one man spoke of them appearing to have a "good marriage" in the years before Mrs Davidson's death. He also said in his statement that in 2021, Mr Davidson commented to him that "Jacqueline would have been gone a long time ago had she not been so pretty". However, he clarified in the statement that his friend had been acting strangely since his wife's death and believed this was a significant reaction to his grief. The court heard that after the drowning, Mr Davidson made a claim on Mrs Davidson's life insurance through her superannuation and received a payout of more than $200,000. Mr Davidson was arrested earlier this year, after he returned from overseas to visit family in Brisbane. Join the Daily Record WhatsApp community! Get the latest news sent straight to your messages by joining our WhatsApp community today. You'll receive daily updates on breaking news as well as the top headlines across Scotland. No one will be able to see who is signed up and no one can send messages except the Daily Record team. All you have to do is click here if you're on mobile, select 'Join Community' and you're in! If you're on a desktop, simply scan the QR code above with your phone and click 'Join Community'. We also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. If you don't like our community, you can check out any time you like. To leave our community click on the name at the top of your screen and choose 'exit group'. If you're curious, you can read our Privacy Notice. Mr Eberhardt told the court Mr Davidson had "no involvement" in setting up that policy and was not aware he was the sole beneficiary before making the claim. He said the couple had also taken out individual policies in mid-2020, and they were both insured for the same amount, which was roughly the cost of their mortgage of $950,000. "The existence of mutual insurance policies between husband and wife is the most unremarkable feature of sound financial planning going into retirement," he said. "The fact he claimed on the insurance policy is even more unremarkable, in fact, it would have been even more suspicious if he didn't claim."The court heard Mr Davidson was aware his wife's death was being investigated by detectives, and after moving overseas, he had corresponded with police on several occasions between 2021 and 2025. "This is not a case of him going overseas then hiding," Mr Eberhardt said. Mr Eberhardt told the court there had been "exaggerations and mischaracterisations" of other alleged evidence, which he said had been "taken out of context". He said this included Mr Davidson burning unknown documents in his backyard while his daughter was home and in view of CCTV, purchasing a new car a week after her death, and starting to date some months later. "None of this would be admissible as evidence of post-offence conduct," Mr Eberhardt said. The court heard Mr Davidson's two daughters, who were both in court to support him, would offer a surety for his release if granted. He also agreed to be subject to a curfew and would surrender his two passports. The bail hearing will continue tomorrow and is expected to be opposed by prosecutors next week.
New Statesman
40 minutes ago
- New Statesman
Ursula von der Leyen's deal exposes the delusions of EU boosters
Photo byThe French prime minister François Bayrou said it was a 'dark day' for Europe. Under the trade deal that Donald Trump and European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen announced in Scotland on 26 July, the US would impose a 15 per cent tariff on most European imports, but the European Union would not increase tariffs on American imports in return. According to Bayrou, 'an alliance of free peoples' had 'resolved to submission'. It was definitely a climbdown for the EU. Ever since Trump was re-elected last year and threatened new tariffs on imports to the US, the European Commission had threatened counter-measures – just as it did during the first Trump administration, when it responded to US tariffs on European aluminium and steel with its own tariffs on American products like bourbon. In the end, though, the EU simply accepted the new US tariffs this time – and on top of that, promised to increase purchases of American liquified natural gas and weapons. To be clear, what was agreed in Scotland is a political or 'framework' deal and a lot of the important details have yet to be worked out. In particular, it is not yet clear whether pharmaceuticals – a hugely important sector for the EU and especially Germany – will be included or how much steel will be exempt from tariffs. Moreover, the promises that von der Leyen made to increase investment in the US have already turned out to be empty – there is no way the EU can buy $750bn of American oil and gas in the next few years and it cannot direct companies to invest in the United States. Nevertheless, in the few days since the deal was announced, it has widely been seen as a humiliating European capitulation to Trump. Many critics of deal – especially EU boosters who fantasise about the idea of 'strategic autonomy' or a 'geopolitical Europe' – seem to imagine that the EU could have followed an alternative approach and stood up to Trump. In reality, though, there was little alternative to what Bayrou called 'submission'. Critics of the deal think EU member states undermined von der Leyen and forced her to negotiate from a position of weakness. It is true that some member states, especially Germany and Italy, ultimately backed off from threats of retaliatory measures because they feared that a full-on transatlantic trade war would ultimately hit important sectors of their economies harder than they are now being hit by the new US tariffs. But the idea that the EU had leverage over the US that it had but did not use – and that if it had used it, it could have struck a much better deal – is wishful thinking. As the world's largest trading bloc, the EU has long thought of itself as an economic superpower and prided itself on its ability to negotiate trade deals – that, of course, was one of main arguments why the UK should remain within in the EU. This deal has somewhat undermined that self-image. After all, in May, the UK was able to negotiate a slightly better deal with the Trump administration, with a baseline tariff of 10 per cent. But what really makes the EU weak relative to the US is its vulnerability in security terms. The idea that the EU had leverage over the US that it did not use only makes sense if you think that economics and security are completely separate realms and that security issues are irrelevant to trade negotiations and cannot be linked. But deep down, despite all the tough talk and the threats of retaliation to Trump's tariffs, European politicians knew that taking such a confrontational approach could have consequences for US support for Ukraine – or even for Nato and the US security guarantee to Europe itself. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe It's striking that this trade deal was being negotiated just as Trump seemed to be becoming increasingly frustrated with Vladimir Putin and more supportive of Ukraine. Earlier in July, Trump had reinstated supplies of US weapons to Ukraine – albeit paid for by Europeans – and threatened new economic sanctions against Russia if Putin did not make progress in negotiations within 50 days. (The day after the EU-US trade deal was announced, Trump said he was now giving Putin even less time.) As tentative as European leaders know Trump's shift on Ukraine is, they do not want to jeopardise it. EU trade commissioner Maroš Šefčovič, who apparently spent hundreds of hours in frustrating negotiations with Trump administration officials, hinted at this in a briefing the morning after the announcement of the deal. He said he could not go into the details of everything that was discussed with Trump in Scotland, but 'it was not just about trade'. In the end, what has made the EU so dependent on the US, and made the EU's 'submission' inevitable, is the war in Ukraine – or, to be more precise, the way that, for the last two and half years since the Russian invasion in 2022, European leaders have insisted that their own security depends on a Ukrainian victory. Related
