The Trump administration’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has issued a memo that paves the way for the deportation of immigrants to countries where they have no previous connections.
This policy, enacted on July 9 by acting Director Todd Lyons, can be implemented with as little as six hours’ notice and without guarantees from the destination countries that deported individuals will not face persecution or torture.
The memo states, ‘If the United States has received diplomatic assurances from the country of removal that aliens removed from the United States will not be persecuted or tortured, and if the Department of State believes those assurances to be credible, the alien may be removed without the need for further procedures.’
Lyons directs ICE employees on how to carry out these removals, especially highlighting the circumstances that may allow for expedited deportations.
Under normal procedures, an ICE officer must first serve immigrants a notice of removal, detailing the country the federal government intends to deport them to and in a language the immigrant understands.
Furthermore, officers are instructed not to inquire about the immigrant’s fears of persecution upon deportation and must wait a minimum of 24 hours before carrying out the removal.
However, in what are described as ‘exigent circumstances,’ deportations can happen in as little as six hours, provided that individuals are given reasonable means and an opportunity to consult with an attorney.
This new policy could affect a significant number of immigrants, including those who have received final orders of removal but have been recognized by judges as potentially facing persecution or torture if deported.
It also extends to individuals from countries where the U.S. lacks formal diplomatic relations or an established protocol for deportations, with Cuba being one notable example.
Critics of the policy have raised serious concerns regarding the implications of these expedited deportations.
Trina Realmuto, the executive director of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, stated, ‘This memo establishes a policy that blatantly disregards the requirements required by statute, regulation, and the Constitution.’
Realmuto pointed out that the new procedures lack any meaningful process, especially regarding the government’s claims of having credible diplomatic assurances for the safety of deportees.
She emphasized that these assurances are ‘unlawful’ as they do not offer adequate protections against persecution or torture by non-state actors.
Moreover, the assurances fail to meet legal requirements for individual assessments, denying migrants the ability to contest such assurances against their deportations.
Realmuto further criticized the lack of transparency from the government regarding which countries have provided these assurances and what agreements were made in exchange.
The policy’s notice requirement, offering only a narrow window of 6 to 24 hours before deportations, was also pointed out as grossly inadequate.
‘It is simply not enough time for any person to assess whether they would be persecuted or tortured in that third country,’ she expressed.
In response to the growing outcry, the Department of Homeland Security defended the ICE memo, emphasizing that it has successfully negotiated various safe third country agreements.
Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin commented, ‘If countries aren’t receiving their own citizens, other countries have agreed that they would take them.’
These agreements are presented as essential measures to ensure due process while addressing serious national security concerns related to ‘the worst of the worst criminal illegal aliens.’
This memo is a reflection of a Supreme Court ruling from June that allows the Trump administration to deport immigrants to third countries without prior connections.
It effectively overrides a federal judge’s order that mandated a ‘meaningful opportunity’ for convicted individuals to present their claims regarding potential risks of torture, persecution, or death in potential countries of deportation.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor criticized the ruling, asserting that it enables the administration to infringe upon immigrants’ due process rights, stating that the safety of many is being overlooked in favor of procedural technicalities.
In her dissenting opinion, she noted that the welfare of ‘thousands who will suffer violence in far-flung locales’ is disregarded in favor of a remote possibility that the federal judge exceeded his authority.
With the policy now effective, the implications for deported immigrants continue to raise significant ethical and legal concerns, with ongoing discussions about its legality and the potential human rights violations it may entail.
image source from：nbcnews
