Under the condition that they individually refused to return to their home country or their home country's government refused to approve the flight, yes.
Refusal to go home does not mean you get to stay.
41
PlatformVarious8941Apr 17, 2026
+15
Doesn’t mean you can get sent to a very unstable country either.
15
fennelliottApr 17, 2026
+2
Well, it is technically a "democratic republic," but I don't think the administration read beyond that before hitting send.
2
PlatformVarious8941Apr 17, 2026
+6
You mean like the DPRK?
6
fennelliottApr 17, 2026
+1
No the DRC
1
PlatformVarious8941Apr 17, 2026
+6
I know, I’m just trying to find other « democratic republics » for this administration.
I’m half surprised they aren’t sending folks over to MAGAdascar.
6
annaleigh13Apr 17, 2026
+2
A law is only a law if it’s enforced. The courts tried but failed, and Congress has given their power to trump
2
h-landApr 17, 2026
I don't think that's going to stop them.
0
Muted_Bee7111Apr 17, 2026
+1
Is ANYTHING the POS in the WH doing legal?
1
ronweasleisourkingApr 17, 2026
+20
I don't understand this. They're not Congolese so why the f*** are they sending them there
20
Tsquare43Apr 17, 2026
+27
They can't go back to their home nations, as they are persecuted and there are judge's orders that prevent them to send them home. So, send them somewhere else, where it becomes someone else's problem, while at the same time "obeying" a judge's order. Cruelty is the point with this administration.
27
Wallsworth1230Apr 17, 2026
+17
More realistically, the point is to set the example that refusing to go home does not make you master of your own fate.
Maybe we should develop a system where people like this can try to negotiate with some other country to let them move there. Like if Brazil or Khazakstan or whatever says "yeah we'll take em" then they can go there.
But refusal to go home does not mean you get to stay here. Either agree to go home or negotiate with a third country to let you move there, otherwise you forfeit the right to choose your destination.
17
Tsquare43Apr 17, 2026
-1
They're refusing because they were under a judge's protective order as there were reasons that they couldn't go to their home country. They came for asylum. Perhaps a death sentence from a cartel, or they're gay and persecuted, or a persecuted religious minority.
So, this version of ICE decides to "honor" that and then send them to a third party.
-1
Wallsworth1230Apr 17, 2026
Article seems to be paywalled, so I can't get much info.
But did these people actually *apply* for asylum? Or did they simply illegally enter the country and then start claiming persecution after being arrested?
Assuming they have actually made an asylum application, has it been reviewed and approved?
If not, then they don't have the right to stay. I could see an argument for letting them negotiate with a third country to take them, but in the absence of that they have to go somewhere.
0
sdnApr 17, 2026
+11
There has been a judicial order saying they can’t be deported to their country of origin.
This means that a case has gone through the court system and a determination has been made that it would be unsafe for them to return.
11
Wallsworth1230Apr 17, 2026
-6
Right, because they claimed they would be in danger there. I suspect they didn't initiate their asylum applications until after they were already arrested.
Either way, that's not an excuse for entering the country illegally and it doesn't mean they get to stay here. They don't have to go home specifically, but they have to go.
-6
sdnApr 17, 2026
+12
You have no idea under what conditions they claimed asylum.
You can enter the country legally and claim asylum after entry.
You’re just full of shit.
12
Wallsworth1230Apr 17, 2026
-2
You're right. Like I said, the article is paywalled which causes me to have limited info available.
But if they're being deported then presumably either they entered illegally or their asylum application was denied.
Either way, like I said before, they don't have to go home but they do have to go.
-2
HillBillyHillyApr 17, 2026
+3
Copy link address. Go to archive.ph or archive.is. Paste and go. Article opens.
3
sambareApr 17, 2026
+3
Hey, don't sell them so short like that. They've also made incredible wealth this past year.
3
Tsquare43Apr 17, 2026
+1
Can't forget the grift!
1
ksck135Apr 17, 2026
+13
They have legal protection from US judges shielding them against being returned to their home country. So they were detained, spent months in detention where US tried to persuade them to return to their home countries and when they still refused, they sent them to one of the African countries US has arrangements with to send their undesirable immigrants.
13
[deleted]Apr 17, 2026
-45
[removed]
-45
intricate_strandsApr 17, 2026
+12
Relax. The person explaining the how doesn't mean they support it or are happy about it.
In fact, that they know f****** anything about it is typically a sign that they are *against* it in American culture.
12
Dry_Invite_6245Apr 17, 2026
+1
they make deals with their countries, in my country ( costa rica ) our president made a deal with Trump to take migrants from other countries of latam.
1
HillBillyHillyApr 17, 2026
+2
Those poor people. Imagine being sent to the Congo instead of Costa Rica. What a nightmare for those poor people.
2
morbie5Apr 17, 2026
-3
> so why the f*** are they sending them there
Cuz we don't want them here
-3
HillBillyHillyApr 17, 2026
+7
I don't want Frump Fetterman or most of Republicans here. Can they be sent to Congo too?
7
morbie5Apr 17, 2026
-3
Get enough representatives, senators, and a president elected that agree with you then sure.
You might need to change the constitution tho
-3
nsfwuseraccntApr 17, 2026
+11
You don't have to go home, but you can't stay here.
11
BigMammoth7291Apr 17, 2026
-20
click bait
-20
cydrilApr 17, 2026
+5
The literal truth is click bait?
5
AmbitiousButRubbishhApr 19, 2026
+1
A whopping 15 people, huh
What a colossal waste of taxpayer money being funneled to somebody’s already loaded pockets
34 Comments