Administration Deports Migrants to Eswatini: What It Means for U.S. Immigration
- Shan Potts
- Jul 17
- 3 min read
News: Administration Deports Migrants to Eswatini
In a highly controversial enforcement action, the administration deports migrants to Eswatini, marking a rare instance of third-country deportation. Five individuals—from Vietnam, Jamaica, Laos, Yemen, and Cuba—were removed from the United States and sent to the small southern African nation of Eswatini. Notably, none of them were citizens of Eswatini.
This follows a recent Supreme Court ruling that upheld the government's authority to deport individuals to countries other than their own, and a new internal memo from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) that permits such deportations with as little as six hours’ notice.
The decision, first reported by The Guardian, has drawn sharp criticism from immigrant advocacy groups and legal experts, many of whom question the legality and morality of deporting people to a country where they have no ties.
Legal & Policy Analysis
That the administration deports migrants to Eswatini signals a significant expansion of enforcement powers. While the legal basis exists in longstanding immigration law, it has rarely been applied—especially in situations involving countries that were not the deportees’ nation of origin.
Key legal and policy concerns include:
Lack of Due Process: The ICE memo’s six-hour removal window severely limits a person’s ability to access legal counsel or challenge their removal.
Violation of Human Rights Norms: Deporting individuals to countries they have never lived in and that may not have accepted them knowingly raises serious ethical concerns.
Global Precedent: This case could open the door for broader use of third-country deportations, particularly in politically complex situations.
Impact on Immigrant Communities
When the administration deports migrants to Eswatini, the message to immigrants in the U.S.—especially those in removal proceedings—is one of instability and unpredictability.
Potential impacts include:
Heightened fear among immigrants with final orders of removal, even if their country of origin is uncooperative or conflict-affected
Reduced ability to seek legal redress due to rapid execution of removal orders
Greater pressure on individuals to “self-deport” in fear of even harsher outcomes
For many, this adds another layer of complexity and anxiety to an already stressful legal process.
Shan Potts Law Offices’ Perspective
At Shan Potts Law Offices, we firmly oppose deportations to third countries—especially when there is no prior residence or legal relationship between the migrant and the receiving nation.
We believe:
Every individual deserves notice, legal representation, and transparency in the deportation process.
The practice of rerouting individuals to unfamiliar countries undermines fundamental fairness and international human rights standards.
These cases illustrate the urgent need for judicial oversight over discretionary deportation powers.
Our firm continues to advocate for humane and lawful treatment of all immigrants—regardless of status or country of origin.
Next Steps for Immigrants At Risk
This case—where the administration deports migrants to Eswatini—is a wake-up call for anyone with an active or dormant immigration case.
We strongly recommend:
Consulting a qualified immigration attorney immediately if you have a final order of removal.
Preparing documentation that shows hardship, medical needs, or asylum concerns.
Staying in regular contact with your legal counsel, particularly if you receive any communication from ICE.
Exploring protective measures like Motions to Reopen, Stays of Removal, and Deferred Action if applicable.
Creating a legal readiness plan with your family, including emergency contacts and legal representation details.
We’re Here to Help
If you or a loved one may be affected by this kind of policy shift, contact Shan Potts Law Offices today. We specialize in complex deportation defense and are actively supporting individuals at risk of expedited removal under new ICE guidance.
(Source: The Guardian)
Comments