US Seeks Latin America’s Aid in Migrant Deportations

Venezuelan migrants have been watching as their fellow countrymen are sent back home from various corners of the globe. In Mexico, the deportation process resembles a U.S. immigration detention facility, while families from Central Asia are flown to Panama and Costa Rica to await their voluntary repatriation. Even from the distant shores of Guantanamo Bay, Venezuelans have been transported back to Caracas, finding themselves on Honduran tarmacs before reaching their country of origin. These strategic actions communicate that the journey to the U.S. border may no longer be worthwhile.

The efforts of the U.S. administration under President Donald Trump are becoming clear. By inking agreements with countries across Latin America, the focus has been on reversing the trend of migration. While the number of people affected remains small for now, it’s evident that the U.S. is finding ways to address the constraints tied to limited detention spaces.

From the start of the Trump administration’s current term, it has successfully brokered arrangements with nations including Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Costa Rica, and Panama. These countries have agreed to become transit points or final destinations for migrants being sent back from the U.S. Moreover, the administration has managed to secure Venezuela’s cooperation in accepting its nationals from various points, including Guantanamo Bay and Texas.

Despite these strategic moves, the details of these agreements remain undisclosed, raising alarm bells about potentially bypassing international protections for refugees and asylum-seekers. Adam Isacson from the human rights organization WOLA, based in Washington, D.C., fears that these could be nothing more than informal “handshake deals.” These agreements might have emerged out of necessity, as the Trump administration threatened tariffs and other economic pressures.

Trump’s earlier presidency already saw similar deals with several Central American nations to manage asylum-seekers, although compliance varied. Now, the agreements seem more expansive. For instance, one notable development involved Venezuela accepting deportees via Honduras, despite the logistic challenges. Meanwhile, El Salvador has offered to detain deportees, including those with U.S. citizenship, showcasing a far more aggressive stance.

Even though the shift in migration dynamics is still at its infancy—largely due to budgetary constraints—images of deportees landing in chains or sequestered in Panama City hotels with pleas for assistance scribbled onto signs have made a significant impression. The present strategy appears aimed at creating a deterrent effect through fear.

The current focus has been on deportations, significantly altering migration patterns. Southbound river crossings in Panama have replaced the once-visible routes of migrants heading north through Mexico or gathering at the U.S. border. Mexico alone has received over 3,300 deportees from various nationalities in just one month alone.

Interestingly, deportees arriving in Mexico carry unusual U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement documents noting Mexico as a new facility for removal, a move unrelated to the “Remain in Mexico” program from Trump’s earlier term. Mexico, under President Claudia Sheinbaum, continues to play a cooperative role, recognizing the diplomatic engagement required to orchestrate these movements.

Further south, the images become even more potent. Panama, previously a major transit point with over half a million migrants headed to the U.S. border in 2023, has now become crucial to the repatriation process. Recently, nearly 300 deportees from ten predominantly Asian countries were held in a hotel in Panama City. Many of them expressed fears related to returning home, displaying signs with pleas like “Help” and “We are not safe in our country.”

For those unwilling to voluntarily return from Panama, relocation to a remote jungle camp became the alternative. However, deportees expressed concern about the conditions. Additionally, similar flights to Costa Rica ended with deportees confined to secluded facilities.

While U.N. agencies are purportedly assisting and the U.S. supports these repatriation efforts financially, the situation remains fraught for vulnerable migrants. Their ongoing plight raises questions about the ethicality of using third countries as deportation intermediaries.

Gretchen Kuhner, from IMUMI, a legal services NGO in Mexico, mentioned concerns after a flight carrying Venezuelans from the U.S. to Venezuela passed through Cancun. Unfortunately, the organization couldn’t confirm if any of those individuals wanted asylum in Mexico due to lack of access.

In conclusion, regional cooperation in these deportation efforts has drawn scrutiny and calls for transparency. The U.S. administration’s objectives are clear: reverse migration trends and bolster deportations. However, as tensions around these strategies increase, so too will the demands for greater accountability and protection for those affected.