Donald Trump has promised to deport as many as 10 million people from the US.
What happens if no country(s) agree to take them?
(Please remember this is in FQ)
I’m guessing they end up in concentration camps (called something else, of course) in the US.
Quick note: This is in Factual Questions, please hold off on the guesses and let someone with actual knowledge answer.
According to google…
“If you are deported from the US and no country will accept you, you could potentially be placed in a “detention center” or “holding facility” while the US government works to find a solution, which could involve attempting to negotiate with your country of origin or another country that might be willing to accept you; however, this is a complex situation with no guaranteed outcome and could result in prolonged detention in a difficult situation.”
Australia used (and is still operating) a system of off-shore detention (on Australian territorial islands and in compliant other countries) analogous to the detention camps mentioned, mainly for unauthorised boat arrivals claiming asylum. The broad idea was to make the prospect of arrival in Australia no longer the end of the process while asylum status was determined, but to add indefinite time delays in unpleasant locations as disincentives.
They also held people who could not be repatriated to country of origin or were not being accepted by any third countries.
For symbolic reasons they did not want anyone landing on the Australian mainland, hence the islands. They also tried massively hard to avoid any interim visits to the mainland, such as being conveyed there for urgent medical attention.
The volumes of internees were [I am relying on vague memory] in the low thousands, but it was administratively massively costly, and the main beneficiaries were Halliburton-like general services companies and their ilk. Many of the inhabitants’ medical and psychological states declined badly during their tenure.
As I understand, the problem is not that another country will not take them, as the country may decide they are not proven to be citizens of the receiving country. A country is under no obligation to accept non-citizens, and some migrants may be reluctant to provide details or paperwork to confirm citizenship. Or, their papework may be lacking. Or the receiving country may pretend the citizenship is not proven to avoid receiving seious troublemakers.
Naturally, anyone at risk of persecution n their home country essentially fits the definition of “refugee” that most civilied countries are promising to protect. (Unless they are proven to be criminals back home)
Contrary to international law I recall some news articles where some countries have declared that certain groups no longer have citizenship. There have been a few threads here about “stateless citizens”. Negotiations may also get awkward between states that are not recognized yb the deporting government.
IIRC until recently the previous UK government had an arangement with Rwanda to take deportees that other countries did not accept, for a fee. (I think there was some discussion to do the same from the USA to Nicaragua?) Plus, when Somalia was a lot more disorganized, some deportees from Canada were flown to Kenya and then some third party security(?) contractors would fly them to some random place in Somalia and dump them there.
But do they have to take their own citizens?
Who’s going to make them?
A powerful country like the US could ban citizens of that country from getting visas, freeze bank accounts of anyone connected to their government, put sanctions on them - the usual measures used to pressure other governments.
It should be pointed out that 1) minus the logistics to prosecute, try, hold, feed, and provide medical support to these 10 million people, they’re all liable to end up being freed into the general population, and 2) at some point of the whole system getting so backlogged that the people are more likely to die of old age than actually have their situation determined and be deported, some legal decision, bureaucratic rule, or something will kick in to officially forgive them so as to clear out the backlog, meaning that you will have effectively converted them all from illegal to legal immigrants.
Was that to me? Fly them to their home country and open the door. Can a country refuse entry to their own citizens?
Google is not a news source. Did you just copy and paste the AI-generated summary it provides? If so, I think we need to keep looking for an actual authoritative source.
Kind of what Canada did:
Basically:
Canada Border Services Agency - or CBSA - say that Somalia is so dangerous federal regulations prohibit Canadian employees from flying there with deportees. The agency’s solution has been to hire pilots or airlines to fly deportees without legal paperwork into Somalia from a neighbouring country such as Kenya. Official travel documents are impossible to come by given the country’s unstable government.
I suppose plan B is to fly to a neighbour third country and then drive the deportee to the border. Presumably that third country is not interested in problem migrants either.
The problem always will be to do this at scale. Camps where refugees get concentrated remove one incentive for non-refugee economic migrants to come to North America, to make money. Whatever it costs, presumably the cost of deporting people in bulk is not much different than the cost of a full refugee hearing. If an airline can fly you to South America or Africa for less than $2,000 then how does that compare with the cost of a few months of detention on top of a hearing?
Google is a search tool, and for me an information source, but I always look at a number of search results to make sure they say the same thing, which in this case they did. They can round up all of the illegals, but until they have a country that is willing to take them they will just hold them indefinitely, at the taxpayers expense of course. Unless, for some reason, they decide to release them back into the population, which seems counterproductive.
The Trump administration was never deterred by counterproductiveness.
The point is they are already “freed into the general population” Half the difficulty will be finding these people to round up and deport.
"at some point of the whole system getting so backlogged… " - that is the problem already. Many of the 30,000-plus a month that were coming in have a court date already - 5 or 6 years from now. Any restrictions on whether they can work are window dressing. Presumably general roundup and deportation will be the result of a major change in the rules allowing for a faster, streamlined and more focussed refugee determination with stricter criteria - assuming the congress and senate and supreme court are willing to be be persuaded to endorse what the administration comes up with.
They can refuse to recognise them as citizens, or the very identity of the person in question may be genuinely impossible to nail down without the cooperation of the person.
Also airlines are legally obliged to only transport people with documentation that lets them enter the country of destination. That could of course be circumvented by using military transport aircraft, but in that case the country in question can refuse landing.
That’s a grave problem here in Germany, because it it can take years to track down that purported X from Algeria (who conveniently lost his passport) is actually Y from Tunisia, and still longer to get Tunisia to issue a passport. The same with the various West African countries.
Not a serious solution but …
What if the US made it very clear that any illegal immigrant will be deported to a country with horrible human rights like Myanmar or North Korea or Sudan (let’s assume an agreement in place so that country will take them). How would that affect the number of people crossing the border?
In which case the countries could just ban flights from our country.
That’s an extremely unlikely assumption. Why would any country like that want 10 million upset refugees with no accompanying payments? You’d end up importing a revolution, which none of those countries want.