Migrants From Asia Deported to South Sudan, Lawyers Say \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ Attorneys say the Trump administration deported migrants from Myanmar and Vietnam to South Sudan, violating a court order protecting them from removal to dangerous third countries. The deportations allegedly occurred without proper notice or language support. A federal judge is reviewing an emergency request to halt further removals.
Quick Looks
- Migrants from Myanmar, Vietnam allegedly sent to South Sudan
- Deportations reportedly violate court order requiring fair process
- Attorneys say migrants weren’t informed in their native languages
- At least one deportation confirmed by immigration email in Texas
- Judge Brian Murphy asked to issue emergency stop order
- Trump-era policy reroutes deportees to third countries like Panama
- South Sudan facing unrest, potential return to civil war
- U.S. State Department cites human rights abuses in South Sudan
- Migrants removed despite exhausting all legal appeals
- Some South Sudanese migrants in U.S. granted Temporary Protected Status
- DHS and White House did not comment on removals
- Court hearing set to determine legality of actions
- Lawyers cite danger and inhumane conditions in third-country transfers
- Deportation tactics invoke contested 18th-century wartime law
Deep Look
The Trump administration is facing legal scrutiny after attorneys for multiple migrants accused U.S. immigration authorities of covertly deporting individuals from Myanmar and Vietnam to South Sudan—an unstable and war-torn country—despite an active federal court order restricting such actions. The allegations, detailed in new court filings, suggest a possible breach of judicial authority and highlight growing concerns about secretive deportation practices involving vulnerable migrants.
Alleged Violations of a Standing Court Order
Attorneys with the National Immigration Litigation Alliance (NILA) argue that these removals violate a prior ruling by U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy. That ruling requires the government to give migrants a “meaningful opportunity” to argue against being deported to countries other than their own, especially when such transfers may endanger their lives.
Despite this order, NILA attorneys told the court that up to a dozen people from various countries, including Myanmar and Vietnam, may have been flown to Africa in recent days. In one case, a man from Myanmar was reportedly notified of his impending removal in English—despite limited proficiency in the language. His legal team was informed just hours before the deportation flight, giving them little time to intervene.
In another instance, a woman reported that her Vietnamese husband was among at least 10 people placed on a flight to Africa early Tuesday morning. Attorneys are seeking an emergency injunction to halt any further deportations until the court can determine if the U.S. government has indeed violated federal law.
Deportation to South Sudan Raises Alarms
The fact that several migrants were allegedly removed to South Sudan has intensified the outcry. The country has experienced ongoing instability since its independence in 2011, with repeated outbreaks of violent conflict between rival political factions. A recent report by the U.S. State Department underscores the danger, citing “significant human rights issues” including arbitrary killings, disappearances, torture, and rampant gender-based violence.
Nicholas Haysom, head of the U.N. peacekeeping mission in South Sudan, warned just weeks ago that the current political tensions resemble the prelude to past civil wars that collectively claimed more than 400,000 lives. Despite these conditions, the Trump administration appears to have used South Sudan as a third-country destination for migrants who cannot be deported to their home countries due to conflict or diplomatic constraints.
Legal and Humanitarian Fallout
The practice of removing migrants to countries with no clear ties to them isn’t new, but it’s fraught with legal and moral peril. Because some nations refuse to accept deportees, past administrations—including Trump’s—have arranged ad hoc agreements with third-party countries like Panama or El Salvador to house deported individuals. These transfers often rely on obscure or antiquated laws, such as the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which critics argue is being misused to justify extrajudicial removals.
In one particularly controversial case last year, the Trump administration deported Venezuelans to a notorious prison in El Salvador, sparking lawsuits and condemnation from human rights groups.
Attorneys for the current case argue that deporting people to South Sudan, particularly without due process or language accommodations, is not only a legal violation but also an act of profound cruelty. They are urging Judge Murphy to reinforce his earlier ruling and stop further removals before the court can assess the full extent of the government’s actions.
Judge Murphy’s Involvement and Broader Implications
Judge Murphy, a Biden appointee, has previously ruled that surprise deportations to conflict zones like Libya are unlawful, especially when migrants have no opportunity to challenge the transfer. His earlier decision emphasized that legal protections continue to apply even after migrants have exhausted their appeals.
The court is scheduled to hold a hearing on the matter Wednesday, where it could issue an emergency injunction or demand additional disclosures from the Department of Homeland Security. Neither DHS nor the White House has issued a public response, despite repeated requests for comment.
Temporary Protected Status Offers a Contrast
Adding complexity to the case is the existence of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for some South Sudanese nationals already in the U.S. The program shields them from deportation due to the ongoing conflict in their home country. Just recently, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem extended these protections through November, citing the need for further review of conditions in South Sudan.
Critics point out the contradiction of granting protection to one group of South Sudanese migrants while sending others—including non-Sudanese individuals—to the same volatile environment. “This isn’t just legally dubious—it’s morally indefensible,” said one immigration advocate familiar with the case.
Looking Ahead
If the deportations are confirmed to have violated the court order, it could have significant ramifications for the Trump administration’s broader immigration policies. The case may prompt new limitations on third-country transfers and reinforce judicial oversight of executive immigration actions.
At the heart of the controversy is a larger debate about the limits of executive power, the rights of non-citizens, and America’s responsibilities under international humanitarian law. As the court prepares to weigh in, lives hang in the balance—and legal precedents may soon be reshaped.
Migrants From Asia Migrants From Asia Migrants From Asia
You must Register or Login to post a comment.