The Department of Homeland Security has deported several illegal criminal migrants to Eswatini, a small African kingdom, in a new enforcement tactic designed to sidestep opposition from their home countries. Migrants convicted of serious crimes, including murder, battery, and burglary, originally came from nations like Vietnam, Jamaica, Yemen, Laos, and Cuba.
Deportation efforts often stall when home countries refuse to accept back their nationals, especially when those individuals pose civic or economic burdens. To overcome this, the U.S. is turning to “Safe Third Countries” willing to accept deportees under special agreements. This approach was recently upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, even as pro-migration groups mounted strong legal resistance.
So far, criminal migrants have been sent to nations such as Costa Rica, Panama, El Salvador, and South Sudan. Now, Eswatini joins that list. Negotiations led by President Donald Trump’s former deputies have paved the way for these deals, which aim to strengthen U.S. sovereignty and restore lawful immigration practices.
Eswatini, formerly known as Swaziland, is a landlocked nation located within the borders of South Africa. It is ruled by a monarch and has an economy heavily reliant on trade with the United States and Europe. This dependency allowed U.S. officials to secure a deportation agreement, although no specific number of migrants to be relocated there has been disclosed.
The expansion of deportations to third countries adds pressure on illegal migrants to leave the U.S. voluntarily rather than face transfer to unfamiliar and less desirable destinations. This strategy, first promoted under the Trump administration, reinforces a return to order at the southern border and addresses growing concerns among American citizens over criminal activity by illegal migrants.
The Biden administration has not reversed the legal framework allowing these third-country deportations, though internal opposition remains strong among progressive officials and immigration advocacy groups. Critics argue the practice could violate international norms, but supporters contend it is a lawful and necessary tool to safeguard national security and deter future illegal crossings.
