WASHINGTON DC:
A new order of the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) stirred up sharp criticism when it was disclosed that migrants could be deported to the third countries within just six hours and even without any guarantee of safety. The policy is an abrupt change in the American immigration enforcement and has raised both legal and humanitarian issues.
The memo contained in the directive, signed by Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons on 9 July, permits using reduced notice in deportation cases. Although in standard procedure, removal cannot occur without 24 hours of notice at least, the memo presents an exception, which allows only six hours of notice in the so-called exigent circumstances. Such are those in which the migrant has been given a chance to employ a lawyer, reasonably speaking, and the decision has been okayed by Department of Homeland Security (DHS) senior administration.
Two categories of removals are defined in the memo. For countries that provide diplomatic assurances regarding the safety and treatment of deportees, no prior notice is required. In contrast, where no such assurances exist, ICE must give 24 hours’ notice or six hours if urgent, though no formal guarantee of the deportee’s safety is ensured.
This policy follows a US Supreme Court decision in late June that temporarily lifted restrictions on third-country deportations, allowing the government to resume removals under the current legal framework. Since then, ICE has deported individuals from countries including Cuba, Myanmar, Sudan, and Vietnam to third-party nations such as South Sudan. Negotiations are reportedly ongoing with several African countries, Liberia, Senegal, Guinea-Bissau, Mauritania, and Gabon, to accept more deportees.
Legal experts and rights groups have raised alarm over the new guidelines. Trina Realmuto, of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, stated, “This policy falls far short of providing the statutory and due‑process protections that the law requires.” Human rights organisations have warned that migrants deported under such conditions face potential persecution or harm in unfamiliar or unstable countries.
Critics have drawn parallels to past deportations carried out earlier in President Donald Trump’s tenure, when individuals were sent to regions facing civil unrest or lacking proper legal safeguards. In some instances, migrants faced violence or detention upon arrival in third countries.
The policy has been defended by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem on national television on grounds that it is needed to guarantee that the worst of the worsts are taken out of the country in an efficient manner. She also added that the US has been assured of cooperation by some governments willing to temporarily accommodate migrants until the time they can be repatriated.
On the one hand, a lot of supporters do not believe in such assertions. According to them, the absence of regular safety assurances and the very short notice delay might be against the constitutional security and the international principles. With court action pending on the policy, the controversy about whether such expedited deportations are not only illegal but also immoral is expected to become more heated in weeks to come.
