By Binnabook Editorial Team
Washington, D.C. / Accra – September 2025
 |
| Ghana received USA Deportee |
The complaint, filed by civil rights attorneys and supported by the ACLU, accuses U.S. officials of orchestrating a 16-hour transfer of five African nationals to Accra, Ghana, reportedly in “straitjackets” a claim Homeland Security has denied. The move, critics argue, was a calculated attempt to sidestep judicial protections and quietly facilitate onward deportation to their countries of origin.
Judicial Showdown: “Disingenuous and Dangerous”
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan has sharply condemned the administration’s actions, calling them “truly disingenuous” and accusing officials of making an “end run” around legal obligations. She ordered the government to provide written assurances that Ghana would not re-deport the immigrants in violation of U.S. court rulings.
Her concerns were validated when one plaintiff was reportedly deported from Ghana to Gambia, despite a prior U.S. court ruling that explicitly barred such a transfer. ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt called the move a “clear violation” of judicial orders.
Legal Loopholes and Global Transfers
Justice Department lawyer Elianis Perez argued that Judge Chutkan lacked jurisdiction over how foreign governments treat deportees. She cited a recent Supreme Court ruling that upheld the administration’s authority to send immigrants to third countries if they hadn’t had the opportunity to present claims of torture or persecution.
The administration’s legal team maintains that immigration courts had issued final removal orders for all five deportees, and that the State Department was working with Ghana to ensure their safety. But critics say the strategy reflects a broader pattern of defiance and manipulation.
Gerlent compared the case to that of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Central American immigrant mistakenly deported to El Salvador despite court orders prohibiting it. After federal judges and the Supreme Court ordered his return, Garcia was brought back to the U.S. only to face human smuggling charges in Tennessee and renewed deportation efforts.
Ghana’s Role and the Third-Country Shuffle
The lawsuit accuses the administration of using Ghana as a “pass-through” nation to obscure the final destination of deportees. While Ghana’s involvement is described as minimal, its cooperation raises questions about diplomatic pressure and regional accountability.
The administration resumed its third-country deportation policy in July, beginning with Eswatini. In Garcia’s case alone, officials threatened to deport him to four different countries within two weeks: Costa Rica (if he pled guilty), Uganda (if he refused), El Salvador (if he reopened his asylum case), and ultimately Eswatini.
This revolving-door strategy, critics argue, is designed to exhaust legal defenses and bypass protections granted by U.S. immigration law.
What’s at Stake
At the heart of this legal battle lies a fundamental question: Can a government circumvent its own courts by outsourcing deportation through third countries? For the five African immigrants at the center of this storm, the stakes are life and death. For legal advocates, it’s a test of constitutional integrity. And for Ghana, it’s a moment of reckoning caught between diplomatic cooperation and moral responsibility.
As Judge Chutkan awaits a formal declaration from the administration detailing its efforts to prevent further violations, the world watches closely. The outcome could reshape the boundaries of immigration enforcement and redefine the role of international partners in upholding or undermining human rights.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Your Views are needed.Thanks!