Latest news with #SupremeCourtoftheUS
Indian Express
05-08-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Understanding the Trump administration's policy on third-country deportations
The Trump administration will spend upto $7.85 million to help Costa Rica deport immigrants, Reuters reported last week. Earlier this year, the South American nation had agreed to detain 200 illegal immigrants from Africa, Asia and Europe before sending them to their home countries. According to the report, dozens remain in the country. The Trump administration announced on July 15 that it had sent five migrants – one each from Vietnam, Jamaica, Laos, Yemen, and Cuba – to the small, landlocked southeast African country of Eswatini. Earlier in July, the US said it had completed deportations of eight men – from Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Myanmar, South Sudan, and Vietnam – who were being held at the American military base in Djibouti, to South Sudan. In June, the Supreme Court of the US ruled 6-3 in favour of deporting illegal migrants to countries that are not their homelands, that is, to third countries. In doing so, it overturned a lower court ruling that required the government to give the deportees a 'meaningful opportunity' to establish that the deportation would put them at risk of torture. Immigration was Trump's key campaign plank, and he started his crackdown immediately after he entered the White House in January. Since then, he has imposed a national emergency at the southern border of the US, refused entry to asylum-seekers, authorised nationwide immigration raids, aggressively pushed for self-deportations, and barred international admissions to Harvard University. As legal challenges to the administration's actions mounted, the President fired 17 immigration court judges across 10 US states between July 11 and 14. Deportations typically involve returning migrants to the countries of their origin, where they hold citizenship. The practice of third-country deportations is seemingly the result of countries refusing to accept their own citizens. Examples of such countries include Cuba, Myanmar, and Laos, and both Republican and Democratic administrations have been rebuffed in the past. The Trump administration, which aims to deport millions of 'aliens' living illegally in the US, has been working to set up a network of countries that would accept people from anywhere in the world and incarcerate them in prisons and camps in their territories. The New York Times reported in June that the US has sought to enter into third-country deportation arrangements with at least 58 countries to which the worst of criminals apprehended on American soil would be sent. The NYT investigation identified seven countries that had accepted third-country deportations from the US as of June 25: Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Kosovo, Mexico, Panama, and Rwanda. South Sudan and Eswatini were added to the list in July. The administration has been willing to pay some of these countries to take in the deportees, The NYT report said. The US gave El Salvador about $5 million after the government of President Nayib Bukele agreed to put about 200 Venezuelans accused of being gang members into a maximum security prison, the report said. The White House has argued that third-country deportations become necessary in cases where the home countries of the migrants will not accept them. A Reuters report published on August 2, however, identified at least five men – two Vietnamese, two Laotians, and one Mexican – who had been sent to their native countries within weeks of being threatened with deportation to a third country, in this case Libya. Tricia McLaughlin, an official at the Department of Homeland Security, posted on X that the Eswatini deportees were 'depraved monsters [who] have been terrorizing American communities', and 'so uniquely barbaric that their home countries refused to take them back'. So what is the current status of third-country deportations from the US? * In June, the Trump administration deported eight men, whom it described as violent criminals, to South Sudan. The Associated Press reported that the South Sudanese government had taken custody of the deportees in Djibouti, but had since declined to say where they were being held. * Earlier this year, the US deported at least 238 Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador, where they would be detained in the notorious Cecot prison, known for its harsh conditions and ill-treatment of prisoners. This transfer was authorised under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act, which grants the US President the power to detain and deport citizens of 'enemy' nations without due process. * Costa Rica had accepted around 200 third-country nationals from the US who arrived on two flights by February-end, according to a Human Rights Watch report from May. * Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said in April that Mexico had received 39,000 deportees from the US, of which 33,000 were Mexicans. * According to an Axios analysis, Guatemala had agreed to accept third-country nationals from the US as a 'pit stop' on their way back to their countries of origin. * Panama, too, had agreed to a similar arrangement, with the US picking up the tab, the report said. * The government of Rwanda accepted $100,000 along with an Iraqi national in April, and has accepted 10 more deportees since then. * In June, Kosovo agreed to host 50 third-country nationals from the US, allowing them to be 'temporarily relocated'. What is the problem with these third-country deportations? There is concern about the countries that the US has chosen to partner with for this exercise. In adopting its third-country deportation policy, the US has abandoned the principle of non-refoulement, a longstanding principle of international law and domestic policy that prevents sending people to places where they would be at risk of torture and persecution, including the home countries of refugees. This aligns with some other steps taken by the administration, including the declaration by Secretary of State Marco Rubio that the move to send migrants to South Sudan and Libya was part of a 'diplomatic push' to improve relations, according to The NYT's reporting. The State Department has said it would no longer indicate in its annual human rights reports whether a nation had violated its obligations not to send anyone 'to a country where they would face torture or persecution', and focus on 'human rights issues themselves rather than a laundry list of politically biased demands and assertions'. Lawyers for the eight deportees to South Sudan had flagged the geopolitical risk, citing the political instability and continued violence in the country since its independence from Sudan in 2011. In March, the US had issued a 'Do Not Travel' advisory on South Sudan 'due to crime, kidnapping, and armed conflict'. The NYT report said the US had issued Level 3 travel advisories ('Reconsider Travel') against three countries, and Level 2 advisories ('Exercise Increased Caution') against another three countries that had accepted deportees from the US. Both these types of advisories are less serious than a Level 4 advisory.
Economic Times
25-05-2025
- Politics
- Economic Times
Indian parents face uncertainty over US citizenship for newborns
The wait for temporary US visas for soon-to-be-born babies of expectant Indian moms has just gotten longer, immigration lawyers told ET. The challenge to the Presidential executive order on birthright citizenship is still awaiting a decision in the Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS). Trump's executive order puts the US citizenship of unborn children of foreign nationals including Indians on temporary visa in limbo. This has caused much anxiety among the expecting Indian parents as they throng immigration attorney offices to seek further counsel. While some are even considering shifting to those states that do not recognize the Trump order as of now, an attorney, who did not wish to be identified, told ET."The scenario for Indian nationals on temporary visas expecting children in the US is quite uncertain. Depending on the jurisdiction, children born in the US may or may not automatically acquire citizenship," said Sukanya Raman, country head, Davies and Associates. "This is complicating decisions around childbirth and long-term residency planning." (Join our ETNRI WhatsApp channel for all the latest updates) According to experts, about 1.5 lakh newborns annually could be denied US citizenship if the order comes into effect. Many foreign nationals have in the past used the US' birthright citizenship path to gain legal entry for their offsprings. This has given way to "birth tourism" which refers to the practice where foreign nationals travel to the United States on visitor visas with the primary intention of giving birth. This ensures their children automatically acquire US citizenship under the 14th trend has been particularly common among women from countries like Russia, China, and Nigeria, said experts. "Recently, a growing number of Indian nationals have also pursued this route," said an SCOTUS deliberations, which started on May 15, primarily focused on the scope of nationwide injunctions rather than the constitutionality of executive order itself, said experts. Despite being a smaller share, Indian families could be deeply impacted by changes to birthright citizenship laws, given the large number of Indian nationals on temporary visas, say experts. "Our firm has been receiving a continuous flow of inquiries from Indian nationals ever since Executive Order 14160 was announced," said attorney Prachi Shah who runs her eponymous firm. Expecting parents on H-1B, H-4, F-1 and OPT visas are queueing up at the immigration lawyers' offices. There is widespread anxiety in the Indian diaspora, said lawyers."The executive order is quite egregious," said Rajiv Khanna, managing attorney, some parents, it's devastating because to have a child in the US after decades of living here and not have them be a US citizen is ridiculous," he usually takes 10-15 years for people to get a green card in the US for people who are here legally."The outcome of the hearing is not clear as to what is going to happen," said Khanna."The US Census doesn't collect statistics on the legal status of parents, but roughly 21-25% of babies have at least one foreign citizen parent," said Jath Shao, principal attorney, Shao Law Firm."The Trump administration's strategy seems to be arguing technicalities and wanting to impose their changes and make all the individual states and plaintiffs fight it," said Shao.
Time of India
25-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Indian parents face uncertainty over US citizenship for newborns
The wait for temporary US visas for soon-to-be-born babies of expectant Indian moms has just gotten longer, immigration lawyers told ET. The challenge to the Presidential executive order on birthright citizenship is still awaiting a decision in the Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS). Trump's executive order puts the US citizenship of unborn children of foreign nationals including Indians on temporary visa in limbo. This has caused much anxiety among the expecting Indian parents as they throng immigration attorney offices to seek further counsel. While some are even considering shifting to those states that do not recognize the Trump order as of now, an attorney, who did not wish to be identified, told ET. "The scenario for Indian nationals on temporary visas expecting children in the US is quite uncertain. Depending on the jurisdiction, children born in the US may or may not automatically acquire citizenship," said Sukanya Raman, country head, Davies and Associates. "This is complicating decisions around childbirth and long-term residency planning." (Join our ETNRI WhatsApp channel for all the latest updates) According to experts, about 1.5 lakh newborns annually could be denied US citizenship if the order comes into effect. Live Events Many foreign nationals have in the past used the US' birthright citizenship path to gain legal entry for their offsprings. This has given way to "birth tourism" which refers to the practice where foreign nationals travel to the United States on visitor visas with the primary intention of giving birth. This ensures their children automatically acquire US citizenship under the 14th Amendment. This trend has been particularly common among women from countries like Russia, China, and Nigeria, said experts. "Recently, a growing number of Indian nationals have also pursued this route," said an attorney. The SCOTUS deliberations, which started on May 15, primarily focused on the scope of nationwide injunctions rather than the constitutionality of executive order itself, said experts. Despite being a smaller share, Indian families could be deeply impacted by changes to birthright citizenship laws, given the large number of Indian nationals on temporary visas, say experts. "Our firm has been receiving a continuous flow of inquiries from Indian nationals ever since Executive Order 14160 was announced," said attorney Prachi Shah who runs her eponymous firm. Expecting parents on H-1B, H-4, F-1 and OPT visas are queueing up at the immigration lawyers' offices. There is widespread anxiety in the Indian diaspora, said lawyers. "The executive order is quite egregious," said Rajiv Khanna, managing attorney, "For some parents, it's devastating because to have a child in the US after decades of living here and not have them be a US citizen is ridiculous," he said. It usually takes 10-15 years for people to get a green card in the US for people who are here legally. "The outcome of the hearing is not clear as to what is going to happen," said Khanna. "The US Census doesn't collect statistics on the legal status of parents, but roughly 21-25% of babies have at least one foreign citizen parent," said Jath Shao, principal attorney, Shao Law Firm. "The Trump administration's strategy seems to be arguing technicalities and wanting to impose their changes and make all the individual states and plaintiffs fight it," said Shao.
