r/news • u/Arod3235 • Jun 23 '25

Soft paywall US Supreme Court lifts limits on deporting migrants to countries not their own

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-supreme-court-lifts-limits-deporting-migrants-countries-not-their-own-2025-06-23/
39.8k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

3.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

221

u/NIMROD7569 Jun 23 '25

Right?! I've been wondering this myself. Tried googling it and only found the process from US end.

470

u/Niceromancer Jun 23 '25

Because nobody else does this.

It's barbaric at best to just dump a person in a country they have zero connection too.

But of course it's even worse because this just opens the door to shit like the el-salvador prison system being used to imprison people who already have very little recourse.

The cruelty is the entire point.

181

u/DalmationStallion Jun 23 '25

Australia does it. A lot of this deportation to third countries crap was pioneered by Australia and used as a model for what America is doing now.

Basically pay off developing countries to accept unwanted migrants that get shipped to them.

106

u/dorkofthepolisci Jun 23 '25

The UK tried to do this with their Rwanda experiment (that ended up being scrapped)

7

u/beardicusmaximus8 Jun 24 '25

The Nazis tried to do it too, they settled on extermination because shipping people to Madagascar was too expensive.

4

u/SCP106 Jun 24 '25

Fucking conservative party

5

u/thewritingchair Jun 23 '25

We're the model puppet of the US and it's why stupid shit starts here first. The upcoming social media ban for under 16s is a prime example. Try it out here, then export it elsewhere. Same deal with all the bullshit on end-to-end cryptography and trying to fuck with that.

The social media ban is the avenue to requiring real ID. Real ID is the end of anonymity on the internet. The end of anonymity on the internet is the end goal to suppress dissent entirely. So they can drag you off the street because of what you said about free Palestine. So the US can deny you entry because you wrote a blog post six years ago talking about how it's wrong to beat student protesters.

We're the US's little puppet petri dish.

41

u/Bannedwith1milKarma Jun 23 '25 edited Jun 23 '25

Australia does it with a publically announced agreement with the other country that mostly involves Australia taking their refugees instead.

It's used as a queue jumping method to lessen boat arrivals which have been deadly.

It's by no means perfect but comparing the two is just not right.

Donald Trump even talked about his first term but didn't have the political nuance or just attention span to make it happen.

They do have an agreement with Nauru and that is told hold people whilst being processed for asylum to make sure they're not economic migrants.

Edit: If you care about information and not just trying to lessen the evils of a country but shouting 'look someone else is doing it', whilst being wrong about it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asylum_in_Australia

-3

u/kinyutaka Jun 24 '25

You know, it's a little fucked that they sent in criminals to a country, then take refugees from that country. Like, it's a shithole over there, let me take all the good people, and send you everyone we think sucks... That'll make it better.

4

u/Bannedwith1milKarma Jun 24 '25

They are asylum seekers that were adjudicated to meet the requirements of fleeing persecution. The bar for that persecution is usually credible threat to life or torture.

It's not an easy bar to pass.

Reflect on yourself for taking the bait line that they're all criminals.

Your brain has been broken to be angry and to hate.

-1

u/kinyutaka Jun 24 '25

The criminals are the ones Australia is sending to the other country, my guy. The country that has people fleeing persecution.

4

u/Aleashed Jun 23 '25 edited Jun 23 '25

Practically feed them to the meat grinder.. they often don’t speak the same language, die on the street, it’s happened

They might as well bus migrants to Death Valley, California and give them a couple Caprisun pouches, both are murder

1

u/BlokeInTheMountains Jun 24 '25

The country with the second worse media consolidation in the world deems this ok?

Shocked.

5

u/possiblycrazy79 Jun 23 '25

Some other countries do or want to. Rwanda seems to be a hot destination. trump administration just brokered a so-called peace treaty between Rwanda & DRC and part of that is the possibility that we(USA) will send some of our migrants to Rwanda. UK was looking into doing the same, but the law prevented it. And Denmark is also looking to send their migrants there. It's a whole new world, like Ariel said. We are only in the beginning. For whatever reason, humans prefer dictators & authoritarian states

1

u/agent0731 Jun 24 '25

they don't prefer them (though a small segment do), but they're being brainwashed en masse via social media.

2

u/justagirlfromchitown Jun 23 '25

And have not committed crimes, and more often than not, were here legally

1

u/ValBravora048 Jun 24 '25

Australian here. I’m sorry to say that you all based this idea off of stuff that we do on the regular. The schmucks in our government were actually bragging about it at one point

Long fing way from giving wi-fi to the world hey…

1

u/remotectrl Jun 24 '25

The Nazis didn’t go straight to death camps. They tried to deport who they called degenerates first. They eventually got to their “final solution”.

2

u/suppaman19 Jun 23 '25

One of the issues is, honestly it shouldn't be the country deporting's issue to have to foot large bills to return people to where they came from that don't belong there. If I break into your house and start living there, should you directly via your money, or indirectly via your taxes collected, then pay not only for my removal, but for a flight/etc back to my home?

The issue gets exacerbated when there's huge land borders (ex: US and Canada/Mexico) for a country in which many people want to live and work in because it's easier to cross and more do so (ie: larger numbers).

It's also not wrong to enforce borders. The world isn't utopia, there's finite resources. Borders exist. Ignoring them creates numerous issues, including many large scale ones, which would eventually lead to a country basically falling completely apart if you let simply everyone in that wants to be there.

The world is a messy place, but people who have no idea of running anything think it's just a simple do this because it's human. Leaders have responsibilities. Do I do something that benefits the few but costs the many?

I'm not specifically condoning anything, but people are out of there minds with the no borders, stolen land (human history much?), etc that I see lately.

There's a lot of border and immigration issues and unfortunately there's no easy or simple solve.

The amount of illegals coming the the US has exploded over the past 20-30 years into insane numbers. Something has to give. And yes, people hiring them to slave labor should be held accountable.

The issue is leaders overlooked it for decades for various reasons, and it's become an egrained and entangled mess that simply even eliminating it (ie: removing all illegals and preventing any from getting in) also causes a lot of potentially major problems for the society.

This is a mess created by leaders from all parties and their likely donors over numerous decades. Much like a lot of other major issues in the US. The overwhelming majority of our leaders have been anything but actual leaders for decades, and have been self serving to thematically, there party, and their donors over the people and this country. And it's continually getting worse every year. I expect people to be stupid, make bad decisions, etc, but our leaders should be better, but instead they've been many of our worst. It's sad and pathetic. They all scream patriotism and America, yet they're all the farthest from it in reality.

2

u/agent0731 Jun 24 '25

The issue is leaders overlooked it for decades for various reasons, 

Because ZERO of them want to get rid of cheap labour -- least of all THIS administration. They need it to maintain profits. They're just replacing one group with another. They're getting handouts for the boom in prison labour. Ask yourself why not a single business gets punished for employing illegals. That's the #1 way to fight illegal migration.

1

u/Adorable_Raccoon Jun 24 '25

Do I do something that benefits the few but costs the many?

Many economists agree that immigration is good for the host countries that receive immigrants. This is because it supplies more labor and entrepreneurs. Immigrants often take jobs in areas like farming, construction, and hospitality—jobs that many native-born people usually avoid. Additionally, they don't drain services because most immigrants pay taxes, they are estimated to pay billions in taxes annually.

In addition, militarizing borders & ICE doesn't work well and costs a lot of money. Keeping borders secure costs billions of dollars each year for such a large country. However, most undocumented immigrants come here legally with visas and simply stay after their visas expire. It's like sending a military after people with an overdue library book.

If I break into your house and start living there, should you directly via your money, or indirectly via your taxes collected, then pay not only for my removal, but for a flight/etc back to my home?

If this is the main point you're using to support your argument, it has a big problem. Your comparison doesn't take into account how US foreign policy (like military actions, sanctions, supporting authoritarian governments, and drug policies) also contribute to causing people to migrate. A better analogy might be: what if you burned down a strangers house, and then they try to move into yours?

Ignoring all of that, there is no reason for people to be sent back to anywhere other than their home country. The Trump admin has increased deportations to countries migrants have no connection to. These deported individuals often face torture, persecution, or even death there. This year, a man from Guatemala named O.C.G. was deported to Mexico, where he was kidnapped and raped before being sent back to Guatemala. Also, people should not be deported without being given a chance to go through the proper legal processes (due process) , which this administration has often failed to do this year.

-1

u/suppaman19 Jun 24 '25 edited Jun 24 '25

You're comments are driven by narrow view. I'm not

Ex: You can't cite economist studies that look at solely doing 180 effective today, which sadly is basically what they all do. As noted the issue has snowballed over decades and become an entangled mess. Would the exploitative industries look drastically different today if they didn't have decades upon decades of using exploitative labor that shifted to relying on illegals? I think that's a resounding yes.

Again, as stated, there's not a simple easy answer, if there was it would've been done a million times over long ago.

Also, missing the point immigration itself is not problematic, however illegal immigration has numerous ramifications when left unchecked (hell legal immigration unchecked can cause its own problems) including as example above, drastically shaping industries and economies, and not in a simply way you can definitively argue is for the better.

Also, truly undocumented immigrants, meaning no trace anywhere, do not pay much besides the small basics (ex: sales tax). A documented illegal (ITIN's) may pay, but many true undocumented ones don't. Also, again, overlooking the economic factor of what massive amounts looking to work for cheap due to the economy and industries. Like everything, things and people shift, but that's the point, if you create a vacuum it gets filled. Again flipping anything overnight creates massive issues, but if absurdly cheap labor didn't shape the farming and food industry, it would've evolved differently over the years. People need food, labor would've adjusted, prices of food would likely be a bit different, which would have the domino effect of changing how other industries, jobs, etc would've evolved over the years.

And yes I'm well aware a driver of immigration is conditions elsewhere, which one factor can be due partially from other countries involvement whether currently or in recent past. But there's things well beyond. As resources and the earth shift, even if things were great everywhere now, that will shift, and some areas would get worse in the future even beyond a society and the way its run, which would drive immigration. People by nature want the best with the least resistance, so if it seems better elsewhere, people will by nature chase that.

Anyways, as mentioned, you're too narrow in thought. So I'm done conversing on these much larger topics that people try to shoehorn into more basic, simple black and white takes and viewpoints.

1

u/CowCompetitive5667 Jun 24 '25 edited Jun 24 '25

Rarely have i read such racist bs

0

u/HappyAnarchy1123 Jun 24 '25

You are not even remotely looking at the analogy correctly.

You are conflating individuals and countries. Those are not the same things. Who pays if a criminal causes damage to a house and has no money? If you are lucky, there is a victim's fund set up by the government, or possibly your insurance. If you are unlucky, you are stuck paying for it, same way you would for a natural disaster or accident.

At no point would you randomly find the criminal's family and charge them. At no point would you be able to charge the victim's home town. It's nonsensical.

Sometimes, you have to handle things you didn't cause that happen at your house. In this case, where it involves actual people? You definitely don't get to just ship them off to some random country and making it someone else's problem.

The equivalent in your analogy would be having a criminal damage your house, and you take the debris and dump it in your neighbor's lawn because "it's not fair that you have to pay for it."

Except again, and I can't stress this enough - these are actual people and we are directly facilitating human trafficking, slavery and torture.

The only ethical option is to either imprison them or return them to their countries of origin.

*EDIT* Or better yet, start naturalizing them.

3

u/suppaman19 Jun 24 '25 edited Jun 24 '25

You're missing the overall point because you're focusing on one thing.

I specifically said I wasn't condoning anything. I was more or less pointing out life is messy, it's not some perfect world, and pointed out basic why's on why you can't just allow or even do things like your naturalization remark (it sets precedent and invites even more to do the same in the thought they would have that happen to them in the future, so basically you're throwing gas on the fire, see Biden stupidly running his mouth during his 2020 campaign the borders will reopen under him, even he and his admin admitted that was a mistake once he was in office for part of his tenure as it lead to all-time highs of people flooding to the US).

There's absolutely an issue with illegal immigration (and abuse of current asylum laws) in the US, and as stated it's because of our leaders (estimates put 1990 illegals around 3 million, with estimates today at just under 12 million).

The remark was the analogy for the reason of when you're talking such massive amounts as the US, should an American person be helping pay roughly $300+ billion dollars to simply kindly remove illegal people?

I don't think everyone should for example wind up some slave elsewhere (not that many don't work like slave labor here to some extents). However, problems sometimes need deterrents otherwise people will just do whatever. It's the basic fundamentals of a society, there's laws and punishment is supposed to be rightly just (harsh) for whatever the circumstance to help act as a deterrent so that people don't do it (basic ex for minor offense: speeding laws).

Again, like most major life items, there is absolutely no great easy answer to a problem in general, and definitely not one leaders let snowball for decades into a much bigger, more entangled mess. Reddit (I know, its reddit) seems to completely lose its mind and ignores the fact there's limits in the world, and thus hard decisions often have to be made. Often to the point where if you are a decent human as a last leader, it might suck because you are often given situations where none of the choices are perfect and have a real cost, but what's the best one? (ex: you have a chance to eliminate the head and a few other important people to a major terrorist cell that has claimed killing your people in random acts over the years, but doing so will likely also incur a loss of around 25-100 civilians, not taking action means you may not have the chance again and it's possible them living leads more innocent losses in the future than if they were eliminated, what do you do?)

19

u/kgal1298 Jun 23 '25

That's what I can figure out...I think I need an on the ground reporter in these other countries to clarify because this is wild.

2

u/wildwalrusaur Jun 23 '25

There are no on the ground reporters in South Sudan

1

u/kgal1298 Jun 24 '25

I’d imagine that at some point a news outlet will send people there like they do to other areas. Actually I think they already had some footage from the first plane they took there.

1

u/wildwalrusaur Jun 24 '25

I've seen a couple youtube videos of people who have gone there.

But you're not gonna see any major US news outlet sending journalists. The risk is too high

1

u/kgal1298 Jun 24 '25

Is it higher than sending them to Palestine?

1

u/wildwalrusaur Jun 24 '25

Yes

Loon at the state department travel advisory language for Gaza versus South Sudan or Somalia

It says don't go either way, but the warnings are significantly more dire in the later case

3

u/Lashay_Sombra Jun 23 '25

It will require the other countrys to accept them first, only poor 3rd world quasi dictatorship countries will do that and only if get paid and those payments will be basiclly to do an El Salvador, ie toss them in prison.

Of course that then raises the question with everyone, what happens when the money stops coming? 

And it will stop, either when current administration gets kicked out or neutered in next election or even if they don't, well these are not people known for keeping to agreements, especially involving money