A Turning Point in U.S. Immigration Policy

March 16, 2025, marked a turning point in U.S. immigration policy. More than 200 Venezuelan migrants were transferred to the Terrorism Detention Center (CECOT) in El Salvador, a country where they had no family, work, or social ties.

Among them were handcuffed men, some with tattoos that, according to U.S. authorities, linked them to the criminal group “Tren de Aragua.” However, their families claimed that many had never even entered the U.S., having been detained at the border and deported without due process.

This case is not isolated. Under the Trump administration, deportations to third countries have become a tool for immigration control, sparking a severe humanitarian crisis.

After a brief pause, the Supreme Court endorsed this practice, igniting a debate about the violation of fundamental rights and the dangers deportees face in unfamiliar territories.

The Legal Framework: Resurrecting 18th-Century Laws

The legal basis for these deportations is particularly troubling; the Trump administration has revived the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, a law originally created for times of declared war.

Through this anachronistic interpretation, the U.S. government has classified entire groups of migrants as “foreign threats,” allowing for expedited deportations without access to legal representation or asylum processes.

This approach initially faced rejection from several federal judges. James Boasberg of the District of Columbia ruled that applying this law to contemporary immigration contexts constituted a dangerous distortion of its original purpose.

Judge Brian Murphy took a similar stance, warning about the constitutional violations inherent in these accelerated deportations. However, on June 23, the Supreme Court, in a divided decision reflecting the country’s deep polarization, ultimately upheld the procedure.

The Supreme Court’s Stance: National Security vs. Human Rights?

The debate within the highest U.S. judicial body revealed two diametrically opposed views on migration and fundamental rights. On one side, the conservative majority argued that deportations to third countries represent a valid tool for border protection. On the other, progressive justices issued a forceful dissent that resonated internationally.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor was particularly emphatic in her criticism: “The government has demonstrated through actions and words that it does not consider itself bound by legal frameworks, assuming the authority to deport people to any destination without granting them the basic right to be heard.”

This position was supported by her colleagues Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, who warned of the risks of torture and persecution faced by deportees in these third countries.

The Human Consequences: Lives in Legal Limbo

Behind the legal debates and political disputes lie deeply disturbing human stories. Testimonies gathered by human rights organizations reveal a recurring pattern: individuals detained at the U.S. border without the ability to contact their families are transferred to detention centers in countries where they know no one and are often confined in maximum-security prisons without specific charges.

The case of El Salvador is paradigmatic. This country, grappling with its own challenges of violence and institutional instability, has received hundreds of deportees in facilities originally designed for gang members.

There, migrants whose only “crime” was attempting to cross the U.S. border share spaces with dangerous criminals, exposing themselves to unimaginable risks.

Similar situations have been documented in South Sudan and other receiving countries, where deportees lack support networks and effective consular protection.

Historical Context: The Evolution of Anti-Immigration Policies

The current deportations to third countries are not an isolated phenomenon but the culmination of a repressive escalation that began years ago.

During his first term, Trump implemented measures such as the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), which forced asylum seekers to wait in Mexico, and the infamous family separation policy that affected thousands of children.

What sets the current strategy apart is its global reach and irreversible nature, while previous policies sought to deter migration or delay processes, the new model involves definitive expulsion to arbitrary destinations, creating a kind of legal limbo where deportees lose all access to legal systems in both the expelling and receiving countries.

International Responses: Between Impotence and Complicity

The international community has reacted with notable timidity to this phenomenon. Some governments, like Venezuela, have denounced the deportations as acts of political persecution, implementing repatriation programs for their citizens.

However, many other receiving countries have accepted these agreements under economic or political pressure, becoming complicit in a system that violates multiple international conventions on migrant protection.

Organizations such as UNHCR and other international bodies have warned that these practices could normalize a model where wealthy nations outsource their immigration obligations to countries with weaker protection systems.

The risk is that other governments may follow this precedent, dismantling decades of progress in human rights.

Toward a World Without Asylum?

Deportations to third countries raise uncomfortable questions about the future of human mobility. In a world where climate, economic, and political crises will displace millions in the coming decades, the response cannot be the creation of legal gray zones where fundamental rights cease to exist.

The case of Venezuelans deported to El Salvador is just the first chapter of a much more dangerous trend. If we accept that states can rid themselves of immigration obligations by sending people to arbitrary territories, what will stop Hondurans from being sent to Guatemala tomorrow, Syrians to Libya, or Congolese to Sudan?

The real threat is not migrants but the normalization of a system where international protection ceases to be a right and becomes a geographical privilege.

IN THIS ARTICLE