In a recent interview with SABC, Craig Smith, immigration lawyer, discussed the controversial issue of the United States deporting asylum seekers to third countries in Africa, particularly Eswatini (formerly Swaziland). The move has drawn criticism from human rights organizations, who question both the legality and the ethical implications of these deportations.
Background of the Deportations
The discussion stems from Donald Trump’s restrictive immigration policy, which aimed to remove failed asylum seekers from the U.S. According to Smith, the policy targets individuals who either cannot prove they are genuine asylum seekers or have criminal records that exclude them from asylum protection.
Since international law prevents deporting people back to countries where they could face persecution or harm, the U.S. government has sought alternative destinations, so-called “third-country deportations.” In this case, Eswatini reportedly accepted $5 million in exchange for accommodating 160 deported individuals.
Legal and Ethical Questions
Craig Smith explained that this arrangement raises deep questions about legality and due process. Under Eswatini’s constitution, decisions on immigration should go through proper legislative and executive channels. Yet, it appears that the Eswatini government approved these deportations without full transparency or even the prime minister’s knowledge, according to earlier reports.
Human rights advocates argue that such agreements may violate both domestic and international refugee law, as governments cannot simply “buy” or “sell” deportees’ relocation.
The Risk of “Legal Ghosts”
Smith highlighted that the deported individuals have no legal status in Eswatini.
They are neither citizens nor legal residents and lack documentation that would grant them rights or protection. He called them “ghosts”—people who exist in legal limbo, confined in harsh conditions without recognition or recourse.
This situation, he said, creates extreme vulnerability and undermines the rule of law both in the U.S. and in Eswatini.
Possible Motives and Broader Implications
Smith suggested that the arrangement could be driven by financial or political incentives, such as aid, trade benefits, or strategic alliances. He also noted that this policy allows the U.S. to sidestep international law by outsourcing deportations to countries willing to accept such deals.
He contrasted the Trump administration’s policy with the Biden administration, noting that these types of deportations did not occur under Biden’s leadership.
Final Thoughts
Craig Smith’s commentary paints a troubling picture of how immigration and foreign policy can intersect in ways that compromise human rights, transparency, and justice.
He calls for greater accountability and legal oversight to ensure that no one is rendered stateless or without protection under international law.