On July 15, 2023, **Orville Etoria**, a 62-year-old Jamaican man, was unexpectedly deported to the **Kingdom of Eswatini**, a landlocked nation in southern Africa. Etoria and four other men, who had lived in the United States for years, were taken from an **Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)** detention center in El Paso without being informed of their destination. Their journey, which began with a chartered flight that crossed the Atlantic, ended in Eswatini where they were imprisoned without charges, raising serious questions about U.S. immigration policy and the implications of a controversial deportation agreement.
The deportation of Etoria and his companions was not an isolated incident but rather the result of a secretive agreement between the **U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS)** and Eswatini, signed in May 2023. This deal, which bypassed Eswatini’s Parliament, allows the U.S. to deport up to **160 individuals** to the country within a year, providing **$5.1 million** in financial support while denying any legal obligations under either country’s laws. Critics argue this arrangement effectively creates a **legal black hole**, stripping deportees of basic rights such as habeas corpus.
Upon their arrival in Eswatini, the men were taken to **Matsapha**, a maximum-security prison located outside the capital, Mbabane. They were placed in an isolated unit, imprisoned indefinitely without any charges. These men had already served their sentences in the U.S. and had been living in their communities under ICE supervision. The DHS’s strategy of utilizing a seldom-invoked third-country provision to remove individuals unable to return to their home countries highlights a troubling shift in U.S. immigration enforcement.
Under U.S. law, deportees may be sent to a third country only if returning to their original country is deemed impracticable or inadvisable. Although this statute, **8 U.S.C. 1231(b)**, has been rarely applied, the current administration appears to be expanding its use. The men from the initial deportation cohort included individuals from various countries, including **Cuba**, **Laos**, **Vietnam**, and **Yemen**, all framed by U.S. officials as dangerous offenders despite their completed sentences.
The lack of transparency regarding these deportations has drawn criticism not only from legal advocates but also from human rights organizations. According to **Human Rights Watch**, the deportees face arbitrary detention and potential ill-treatment, violating fundamental human rights principles. Legal representatives have described the process as a hurried and silent operation, depriving individuals of the opportunity to contest their deportation.
The legal landscape surrounding these deportations continues to unfold. A lawsuit by the **Southern African Litigation Centre (SALC)** challenges the validity of the agreement, positing that it violates Eswatini’s constitution because it was not approved by Parliament. As discontent grows over increasing executive power in Eswatini, the partnership with the U.S. raises deeper concerns regarding the treatment of individuals in transit.
Despite attempts by local lawyers to reach the deportees, access has been limited. **Sibusiso Nhlabatsi**, a lawyer representing some of the men, has faced repeated refusals from prison officials to grant him visitation rights, citing various excuses. This barrier to legal representation exacerbates the uncertainty faced by these individuals, who are now indefinitely detained with no clear pathway to freedom.
The situation has spurred protests and hunger strikes among the deportees. **Roberto Mosquera**, another detainee, initiated a hunger strike on October 15, 2023, protesting his indefinite detention. His attorney, **Alma David**, emphasized the dire consequences of such a drastic measure, underscoring the urgent need for accountability from both the U.S. and Eswatini governments.
As the U.S. continues to expand its deportation strategies, the implications of these policies raise serious moral and legal questions. The agreement with Eswatini appears to signal a shift towards outsourcing immigration enforcement, particularly to nations with limited democratic practices and accountability frameworks. Legal experts, including **Temple University law professor Jaya Ramji-Nogales**, argue that this model undermines the rule of law and risks violating international standards for the treatment of refugees.
The ongoing legal challenges and the uncertain future of the deportees reflect a broader crisis in U.S. immigration policy. The arrangement with Eswatini, along with similar agreements with other African nations such as **Uganda**, **Rwanda**, and **Ghana**, illustrates a concerning trend of circumventing established legal protections for vulnerable populations. As these developments unfold, the human cost of such policies remains significant, with deportees caught in a web of legal ambiguity and systemic disregard for their rights.
As the world watches, the fate of these individuals hangs in the balance, prompting urgent calls for reform and accountability in the face of an increasingly restrictive immigration landscape.
