When eight men in the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement boarded a plane in May, officials told them that they were being sent on a short trip from Texas to another ICE facility in Louisiana.
Many hours later, the plane landed in Djibouti. The men were held in shipping containers for weeks, shackles on their legs. this past weekend, they were expelled to the violence-plagued nation of South Sudan.
This deception, revealed by an Intercept inquiry, highlights the lengths to which the U.S. government will go to further it’s anti-immigrant agenda and deport people to so-called third countries to which they have no connections.
Lawyers for three of the men said that their clients were told, after resisting deportation to Africa, that they were instead being transferred to a detention facility in Louisiana. ICE then hustled them onto a plane, in the wee hours of the morning, and flew them out of the country without their knowledge or consent. This account was further corroborated by the wife of one of those same men who was told about ICE’s tactics in real time.
“This underscores just how abysmal and reprehensible the government’s treatment of these men has been from the very beginning, and the fact that the government made no genuine attempt to comply with the district court injunction in place prior to shipping them out of the United States,” said Glenda Aldana madrid, a staff attorney at the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project who is representing one of the men, Tuan Thanh Phan.
Aldana Madrid added, “Tuan and the other men had the right to know where they were going, and yet the government did not have the basic decency to do even that before putting them on a plane bound for a country none of them knew, and that is on the brink of civil war.”
The Intercept sent numerous requests to ICE for comment. Spokesperson Miguel Alvarez acknowledged receipt of the questions but did not reply.
While the men were in transit in May, a federal judge intervened. Citing a prior nationwide injunction requiring the administration to give deportees advance notice of their destination and a “meaningful” chance to object if they believed they’d be in danger of harm, the eight men were not flown directly to South Sudan. They were instead imprisoned for weeks at a U.S. military base, Camp Lemonnier in Djibouti, shackled at the feet in a converted shipping container.
The men had been convicted of violent crimes, many had served lengthy prison sentences, and had “orders of removal,” meaning the government had the legal authority to deport them. But most of the men – who hail from Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Myanmar, Pakistan, South Korea, and Vietnam – have no ties to South Sudan. An eighth man is South Sudanese but left Africa when he was a baby, before the nation of South Sudan even existed.Last Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled that the expulsion to South Sudan could go forward, the latest in a recent spate of decisions that have paved the way for the Trump administration’s mass deportation regime – and have restricted immigrants’ rights to object on the grounds that thJoin Our Newsletter
Thank You For Joining!
Original reporting. fearless journalism.Delivered to you.
Will you take the next step to support our autonomous journalism by becoming a member of The Intercept?
Become a member
By signing up, I agree to receive emails from The Intercept and to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Court documents and emails examined by The intercept show that one of the eight men, Nyo Myint, an immigrant from Myanmar referred to in the documents as “N.M.” – who has limited proficiency in english – was served a “notice of removal” which said that ICE intended to deport him from a detention center in Port Isabel, Texas, to South Africa, not South Sudan. The certificate shows that the notice was read to Myint in English, without an interpreter, at 10:59 a.m. on May 19 and that Myint refused to sign the document.
Ngoc Phan, the wife of Tuan Thanh Phan, who hails from Vietnam, offered a similar account from contemporaneous conversations with her husband. Ngoc spoke with Tuan by telephone while he, Myint, and others were facing deportation, and she offered a narrative that corroborated the legal documents and accounts by lawyers who spoke with The Intercept.
“Everyone protested because no one from that group was from South Africa. they said, ‘We don’t know anybody there. We’re not from there. We don’t wont to go there.’ And no one signed the paperwork that the officers gave them,” said Ngoc, relaying what Tuan told her on May 19.
Tuan Phan and Ahmer Shaikh – another ICE prisoner ultimately separated from the group who spoke to the new York Times – offered nearly identical accounts. Both said that everyone refused to sign the forms. An ICE agent told them something to the effect of, “I’ve got good news for you and bad news for you. The good news is we are not going to deport you to South Af
The Expanding Practise of “Deportation Roulette”: Sending migrants to Unsafe Third Countries
The United States is increasingly resorting to the practice of deporting individuals – including those with legitimate claims to remain – to countries where their safety is far from guaranteed. This controversial tactic, often bypassing established repatriation protocols, raises serious humanitarian and legal concerns, and appears to be escalating under recent administrations. Rather than focusing on direct repatriation, the U.S. is actively seeking “third-country nationals” – individuals who are not citizens of their destination – creating a complex and possibly hazardous global network for migrant displacement.
Beyond Conventional Deportation: A shift in Tactics
Traditionally, when an individual is subject to deportation, they are returned to their country of origin.However,a growing number of cases reveal a disturbing trend: individuals are being sent to nations that have no legal or moral obligation to accept them.This occurs even when their home countries are willing to accept them, or, more alarmingly, as a deliberate strategy to intimidate other migrants and discourage future immigration.
Recent reports highlight the case of eight Mexican nationals who were initially told they were being deported to south Africa, only to be rerouted to South Sudan – a nation embroiled in ongoing conflict and humanitarian crisis. According to their legal portrayal, the men were presented with documents indicating South Africa as their destination, and refused to sign them. Shortly after, they were informed of the change in plans, effectively being sent to a far more perilous situation.this echoes similar instances where individuals have been diverted to countries like Libya, further illustrating a pattern of disregard for migrant safety.
The Search for “Deportee Dumping Grounds”
The U.S. government is actively pursuing agreements with numerous countries – reportedly over a quarter of the world’s nations – to accept these “third-country nationals.” These negotiations are shrouded in secrecy, with both the State Department and Immigration and customs Enforcement (ICE) refusing to provide details. This lack of transparency fuels concerns that the administration is prioritizing expediency over the well-being of those being deported.
This strategy is notably concerning given the economic and political vulnerabilities of many of the nations being targeted. The U.S.appears to be leveraging its power to create a system where weaker countries are pressured into accepting individuals they are ill-equipped to support, effectively turning them into “deportee dumping grounds.” For example, in 2023, over 74,000 individuals were deported from the U.S. to Central American countries, many of whom faced violence, poverty, and lack of opportunity upon return. The addition of distant and unstable nations to this network significantly exacerbates the risks.
Legal Challenges and Dissenting Voices
The legality of these practices has been challenged in court, but recent Supreme Court rulings have largely sided with the government, granting broad discretion in deportation procedures. Though, dissenting justices have voiced strong objections, arguing that the court is prioritizing administrative convenience over the essential rights of migrants.
Justice Sotomayor, in a recent dissent, powerfully articulated the gravity of the situation, stating that the court’s decision effectively sanctions the potential for “thousands [to] suffer violence in far-flung locales.” She criticized the lack of due process and the disregard for the constitutional rights of those being deported.
A System Built on Fear and Uncertainty
The implications of this expanding practice are far-reaching. Beyond the immediate danger faced by those being deported to unstable regions, the tactic creates a climate of fear and uncertainty within immigrant communities. The possibility of being sent to an unknown and potentially antagonistic country serves as a powerful deterrent, and critics argue that it is indeed being used as a deliberate tool to discourage immigration.
The current approach represents a significant departure from established norms and raises fundamental questions about the U.S.’s commitment to human rights and international law. As the network of “deportee dumping grounds” expands, the need for greater transparency, accountability, and a more humane approach to immigration becomes increasingly urgent.