ListNook

LateralEntry 1 day ago +319

DR Congo would be a bad place to end up

319

d0ctorzaius 22 hr ago +174

The cruelty is the point. "Oh, you claim you aren't an economic migrant? Hehe, then you shouldn't care if we send you to an even poorer country than you came from!"

174

hiricinee 22 hr ago +107

They don't claim they are economic migrants. They claim they're asylum seeking because they face persecution in their home country. Of course, they generally cross through several land borders to get to the US. You're right that they are economic migrants though. Most people would rather live in a country with the murder rate of Colombia and the economy of the US than a country with the murder rate of the US and the economy of Colombia.

107

Conscious_Formal_894 21 hr ago -24

In Colombia ? Im not familiar with ongoing targeting there.

-24

Zedilt 11 hr ago +2

All about "hurting the right people".

2

Lopsided-Engine-7456 17 hr ago -29

Europe or Canada are free to accept them. But Listnook loves to praise and welcome immigration controls in every other country except the US. European and Canadian listnook idiots love tight border controls for Europe ands Canada (Check the recent threads). Even Mexico has stricter immigration controls than the US. https://www.thetimes.com/world/europe/article/eu-deportation-hubs-africa-s7lh8z9b9 Reddiots are praising Mexico over the US in any thread about Mexico. Why do these people not stay there then?

-29

LateralEntry 22 hr ago -55

I mean, I’m not super upset about it as a policy. If you immigrate illegally you take the risk of being deported, and if your home country won’t take you back, there’s no telling where you’ll end up. I do feel bad for these people specifically ending up in DR Congo though, that’s one of the worst places.

-55

Groovychick1978 22 hr ago +57

So what if they came legally, applied for asylum legally, was granted asylum, was living legally waiting for their asylum case, and then a tyrannical government came in and invalidated their program? Do they still deserve to go to a country where they don't speak the language and have never lived?

57

LateralEntry 21 hr ago -40

There’s around 10 countries between Colombia and the US. Why did they have to travel to the wealthiest one to claim asylum? Why do they need asylum? In Colombia the drug wars are over and the FARC laid down their arms

-40

AgreeableIce8904 20 hr ago +20

* Did you read the article? They were asylum seekers, one of whom was granted protection by a judge. They did not "immigrate illegally." * Did you read the article?? Both of them \*fled\* Colombia. It has nothing to do with the nation "taking them back." * How well do you know Colombia? FARC laying down arms did not end organized crime. There are countless other armed groups, including FARC dissidents. The fighting never stopped. For these men who were directly victims of the conflict, there is plenty to flee from. And drugs exacerbate the conflict, but calling it a drug war is highly reductive, or just bizarre. Per my Colombian partner. * Seriously, did you read the article??? "The agents started pressuring me to go to a third country like Mexico, but the situation there is also complicated with drug trafficking." The '10 countries between' are not safe havens from militant conflict as the US is.

20

N80N00N00 19 hr ago +8

Because we literally shit on all those countries.

8

LateralEntry 18 hr ago -1

Literally? Sounds like we should eat less fiber

-1

hiricinee 12 hr ago +1

Im not even a fan of framing it that way. Its like saying "if you rob a bank you risk having to give the money back." Deportation doesnt have much downside compared to not coming in the first place.

1

AdSevere1274 1 day ago +279

>These costly agreements with third countries have been the Trump Administration’s immediate solution [for deporting migrants](https://english.elpais.com/usa/2026-04-20/the-spanish-citizen-forgotten-by-everyone-at-an-ice-center-i-am-literally-abandoned-as-if-i-dont-exist.html) who, for their own protection, cannot return to their places of origin. >The Colombian man maintains that his application was still within the deadline, but that didn’t stop ICE’s plans. “From Jacksonville they took me to Louisiana. There they told me they were going to give me the yellow fever vaccine because they were going to send me to Angola, but I assumed it was just pressure and a mind game. Until the 13th \[of April\] they took me out and [put me in some cells](https://english.elpais.com/usa/2026-04-16/more-detentions-and-less-oversight-report-warns-of-rising-deaths-in-ice-custody.html) at the Alexandria airport, and that’s when I found out they were going to send me to the Congo.".... >He boarded the plane that would take him to the DRC. It would first stop in Dakar (Senegal) and Accra (Ghana). “I couldn’t believe what was happening. My head was still spinning, and I prayed to God for strength. I felt so helpless because we were tied up. They gave us a small bag with a sandwich and water. We couldn’t lift our heads. They treated us like slaves. It’s something I wouldn’t wish on anyone,” Rodelo recounts. Traveling with him and Cubillos were other Colombian, Peruvian, and Ecuadorian citizens.

279

EffOrFlight 1 day ago +386

How can you be a Christian and support this administration?

386

_Schrodingers_Gat_ 1 day ago +124

You feel it more important to support billionaires that make sport of raping children because pope Leo said some mean woke shit like we should end all wars and feed the hungry?

124

ToughImprovement276 21 hr ago +31

Modern Christianity, with American brands of Christianity in particular, bare little resemblance to the book on which it is based.

31

Overwatchingu 22 hr ago +22

A complete and total lack of empathy that’s frighteningly pervasive in the USA allows this kind of cruelty on a large scale.

22

Chazkuangshi 19 hr ago +12

My Catholic MAGA aunt sided with Trump vs the Pope last week. Going by her posts, I imagine she would just say she keeps religion and politics separate. Which obviously is not how it works

12

Remote-Resolve9797 20 hr ago +16

There's no love like Christian hate

16

OldManGoran 23 hr ago +13

Everything is easier with God on your side.

13

Bluntz0809 21 hr ago +5

You actually aren’t Christian, that’s how.

5

Sighlina 23 hr ago +2

Christians supporting evil… color me surprised 😱

2

Crow_away_cawcaw 15 hr ago +2

Persecuting others is like the longest standing practice in Christianity

2

Legitmate-Account469 20 hr ago +1

There's no such thing anymore

1

lapsaptrash 1 day ago -1

It’s just plain racism.

-1

Crowley-Barns 22 hr ago +3

Buy my Trump bible for $999 and I’ll include my free pamphlet titled “Why REAL Christians reject the teachings of loser far left Jesus” for just a mere $99 postage and $99 tithe extra!

3

Shawnathan75 20 hr ago +2

American Christians are just that: American Christians…. Totally divorced from the Pope, the Vatican, reality…..

2

Unlucky-Guava5748 11 hr ago +1

Give unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar.

1

Available_Finger_513 21 hr ago -2

Because most Christians are pieces of shit that use religion to justify being a piece of shit.

-2

namitynamenamey 12 hr ago +1

They believe in the purity of the white race and worship of trump, the rest is cultural baggage, performative rituals.

1

MsMcClane 18 hr ago

They're purposely speed running theApocalypse

0

Shreddersaurusrex 13 hr ago

Christians are supposed to not pick sides in political issues

0

fruitloop00001 23 hr ago -20

The same way you can be a Christian and believe in evolution: the answer is just don't think about it. Got scolded a lot for asking obvious questions about religion back in Catholic school.

-20

OsFillosDeBreogan 20 hr ago +11

The Catholic Church accepts evolution, one of their priests proposed the Big Bang theory

11

Particular_Money933 23 hr ago -48

How can you be a Christian and support HAMAS?

-48

Available_Finger_513 21 hr ago +8

We are talking about Columbians being deported to the DRC that is actively having a civil war

8

texanbadger 23 hr ago +6

Not even a clever argument clanker.

6

wickerflicker 23 hr ago -1

Oh stop it, silly.

-1

Editmantis 23 hr ago

This is a stupid take, are the bots on low power today?

0

Initial_Brush_64 21 hr ago -5

Trump is a classic christian..

-5

ColdCauliflour 1 day ago +27

I thought Petro was using the presidential plane from Colombia to bring Colombians (who fled their native country) home in dignity?

27

AdSevere1274 1 day ago -26

I believe that it is called kidnapping. USA has kidnapped select people to exile them. Why Congo, the war zone had a low bar and accepted kidnapped people for a deal..

-26

time_travel_rabbit 21 hr ago +15

It’s called deportation. Many countries also have deportation. Why didn’t other countries offer to accept these people, the only rule by court order is not the home country that the immigrants petitioned the court for.

15

CombatMuffin 20 hr ago +2

Yes, but you have a duty not to leave these people in worse circumstances than they were otherwise in, especially if the reason they couldn't be returned to their home countries was safety. Ironically, having to move these people around this much, across the world might ultimately be more expensive than just making economic policies taking advantage of their presence on the U.S.

2

Aloysiusakamud 18 hr ago +6

It's 3 times as expensive compared to both US presidents Biden and Obama terms. If his numbers remain consistent Obama will most likely still have deported more people as well.

6

CombatMuffin 18 hr ago -1

You somehow failed to missed the point. It's not about the number of deportations, or the concept of deportations. Is *how* you do it that also matters. Deporting them to countries they are not native to, which are undergoing civil turmoil, is akin to displacement. It's inhumane.

-1

Expert_Regret3947 20 hr ago +2

Shit. It sort of sounds like you want some slaves. Is that what you’re saying?

2

CombatMuffin 18 hr ago

What? How the hell do you assume that? What I am saying is that if you have a large amount of people wanting to emigrate from their countries, into your country, that's something you can adapt to, like the U.S. did for a century and a half. You create economic policies that enable these immigrants to find work, and produce stuff, and increase your domestic economy. What is happening right now is *backwards*, conservatives are trying to blame their economic woes on immigrants who are willing to work twice as hard for half the pay, but instead of adapting economically to take advantage of the increased population coming into an already existing melting pot, they want to waste resources expelling them, as if their economic issues stemmed from immigrants. It is not only cheaper to keep immigrants in, *it is economically productive* to do so. Instead, the U.S. faces a revolving door where no matter how many times they deport them, immigrants still keep coming back.

0

Kurt805 23 hr ago +6

I'm sure they'd send them to Canada if they want to sign a deal. They won't though, because millions of "asylum seekers" are only our responsibility, apparently.

6

_PaddyMAC 22 hr ago -3

Or they could send them to their home countries instead an active warzone dude, it's not that f****** hard to grasp.

-3

AdSevere1274 23 hr ago -10

Why would Canada sign a deal like that? We are not running a civil war like Congo.. You need desperate countries with no laws...

-10

Kurt805 23 hr ago +6

Ah, you just seemed upset about their fates. The buck always immediately stops as soon as they're in YOUR country though.

6

AdSevere1274 23 hr ago -5

You are not upset and it is your country that is behind it... Being shameless you are defending their action

-5

SweeterThanYoohoo 1 day ago +136

Takes a special type of moron to not understand how, even despite being unsafe in one's home country, it would be better to be there than a completely different continent, in a completely different culture, with literally nothing to your name, no friends, no family, nothing familiar at all. Then add to that the country you are sent to is in active war and is no one's definition of safe in the first place. To defend what is happening and what has happened means one if devoid of anything remotely resembling compassion and empathy.

136

AdSevere1274 1 day ago +66

Congo is running a very hot civil war but then there is a mineral deal.. you know .. USA got the first shipment this year, apparently it was copper.

66

JEBV 23 hr ago +39

Was the seller named Ea-nāṣir?

39

eldrunko 23 hr ago +20

That a****** still owes me 20 dollars

20

AdSevere1274 23 hr ago +1

Good one there: you are well read and have a good memory.. """Oldest Customer Complaint" by Guinness World Records... The tablet details that Ea-nāṣir travelled to [Dilmun](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilmun) to buy [copper](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper) and returned to sell it in [Mesopotamia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesopotamia). On one particular occasion, he had agreed to sell copper [ingots](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingot) to Nanni. Nanni sent his servant with the money to complete the transaction.[^(\[7\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complaint_tablet_to_Ea-n%C4%81%E1%B9%A3ir#cite_note-7) The copper was considered by Nanni to be sub-standard[^(\[8\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complaint_tablet_to_Ea-n%C4%81%E1%B9%A3ir#cite_note-FOOTNOTEOppenheim196782%E2%80%9383-8) and was not accepted.""" [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complaint\_tablet\_to\_Ea-n%C4%81%E1%B9%A3ir](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complaint_tablet_to_Ea-n%C4%81%E1%B9%A3ir)

1

chaosperfect 19 hr ago +1

Deep cut!

1

jaynort 1 day ago +28

The cruelty is the point. It’s always the point. It’s all so confusing until you ask yourself “what would a cruel person do in this situation?” You get far more consistent answers when you ask yourself that question every time you find yourself baffled at the decisions conservatives make and support.

28

SpiderHomeNoWayMan 20 hr ago +3

The wildest thing to me is that technically it's not for a crime. It's a civil matter It's incredible how they managed to carry out this punishment without the need to criminalize the act.

3

OkGeologist2229 21 hr ago +7

Agree, why not just send them back to their home country? The DRC is not a place for anyone to be. It's cruel amd unusual punishment.

7

exsnakecharmer 19 hr ago +16

They said they were persecuted in Colombia and refused to go back there.

16

OkGeologist2229 19 hr ago +12

I wonder if they regret not just going back to Colombia? Bad situation all around

12

Aloysiusakamud 19 hr ago +7

From all accounts that I have read in the past, it's dependent on the country they return to. I think in his case Columbia would probably have been the safer choice.

7

OkGeologist2229 8 hr ago +1

Agree.

1

Wallsworth1230 23 hr ago +24

The concept of deportations is not immoral. They have to go somewhere. If you refuse to go home, then so be it. Maybe you can negotiate a deal with an alternative country that's willing to take you. But nothing means you get to stay here. They don't have to go home. But they do have to go.

24

geaux124 23 hr ago +28

You don't have to go home, but you can't stay here.

28

SweeterThanYoohoo 23 hr ago -26

Did you rub your nips raw while saying this?

-26

BackupChallenger 22 hr ago +6

Isn't that for apologizing?

6

geaux124 23 hr ago +2

They aren't raw....yet.

2

Best-Implement-9633 19 hr ago -7

Not to be obtuse but I am genuinely interested in hearing why you believe they “have to” leave the US (what problem(s) is/are immigration laws intended to solve?)

-7

Drop_and_post 8 hr ago +1

The problem of not being a majority white country

1

SweeterThanYoohoo 23 hr ago -27

Did I say the concept of deportations was immoral? Now, if a person is otherwise a good citizen, why would deportation be a smart solution to something like overstaying a visa, for instance?

-27

Wallsworth1230 23 hr ago +25

If they're here on a visa that expired, then they aren't a citizen. But yeah, if the agreement was that you can only stay here for a finite span of time, then you have to leave once your time is up.

25

ieatthosedownvotes 20 hr ago -4

If the path to citizenship were not so convoluted, the visa would not have time to expire. Also, in OP's statement, the application was still not expired.

-4

Alystros 23 hr ago +14

What else do you have in mind as a solution?

14

SweeterThanYoohoo 23 hr ago -11

Let them become a citizen, obviously. Provide a reasonable pathway to citizenship for the people who are paying taxes, raising a family, contributing to society positively. It makes 0 sense to deport people like that. It's stupid and cruel, and oh did I mention really stupid

-11

MrGraveyards 22 hr ago -26

Ok so uhm, let me make this clear. The concept of deportation is very much immoral. In fact I think you can very much make a graph with immoral on one axis and time on the other. Taking somebody from their home to force them to go anywhere is downright evil. Borders are arbitrary f****** things. If you don't want somebody crossing that border that is understandable, otherwise we get mass immigration problems which causes problems of a size that cannot be dealt with, but you need to stop them at the border. Once they are on your land longer then a f****** vacation length it is very much immoral to force them back. Just because almost every country has some arbitrary piece of shit archaic a****** rules about this nonsense, doesn't mean it is 'moral' in any way. The whole concept of borders is immoral in the first place! Borders are for immature monkeys who still need to grow up, unfortunately. This whole argument is moot. And we definitely shouldn't randomly dump people in a country they've never even been to.

-26

geaux124 18 hr ago +7

Holy mass of contradictions. Borders are totally immoral! But we need them to prevent mass immigration! But if you can sneak across and play hide and seek long enough you get to stay, which in turns leads to the mass immigration problems that you yourself are worried about. What's wrong with sending them to a country they have never been? They had never been to the United States before either before coming in illegally.

7

Wallsworth1230 22 hr ago +16

Interesting. Do you consider this to apply to your own physical home too? If I manage to break into your house and evade your efforts to get me out for a week, does that entitle me to sleep on your couch forever?

16

joni-bella 21 hr ago -7

If my physical home were 22,612,000 acres in size, and you took care of yourself, I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t even notice you were there.

-7

Wallsworth1230 21 hr ago +11

So you're talking about the woods, not finite supplies of houses and apartments. No, these people often are not getting real jobs and taking care of themselves and we aren't dropping them off in the woods. We're dropping them off in towns that aren't capable of handling them.

11

After_Lie_807 20 hr ago +2

Why didn’t Colombia repatriate their citizens?

2

ezagreb 1 day ago +3

Some of these people aren’t unsafe in their own country this is just what they put on their asylum application because that’s what they’re told will get them temporary approval status. So Trump’s method of dealing with this is to send them to some of the worst places you could imagine basically as punishment for wanting a better life in the US. Most of these people probably had jobs and were tax paying productive residents. Everyone involved in this needs to be prosecuted

3

time_travel_rabbit 21 hr ago +14

Prosecuting people for following federal law and court orders?

14

Wallsworth1230 22 hr ago +21

We are neither capable nor obligated to accommodate the entire global population of poor people. Just because you're home country is poor is not an excuse to bypass our immigration system and sneak into the country.

21

hannabarberaisawhore 21 hr ago +7

Which is fine, but don’t send them across the Atlantic FFS!

7

Wallsworth1230 21 hr ago +15

They refused to go home. They legally contested their deportations claiming that they are persecuted in Colombia. A judge agreed and signed an order saying they can't be sent home. So be it, but that doesn't mean they get to stay here. Maybe we should let them individually negotiate with other countries to let them go there. But for now Congo has been the only country willing to let us deport people there. They don't have to go home. But they do have to go.

15

The-Cosmic-Ghost 21 hr ago -4

Right, cause it makes a lot more sense to pay 130000 per person, and tens of millions to the host country because yall are scared of people that dont burn in the sun😂 americans

-4

Wallsworth1230 21 hr ago +14

Sorry man, but illegal immigration is a valid crime and they have to leave. They filed a legal appeal refusing to go home claiming they faced persecution there. A judge approved it and ordered they can't be sent home. So be it, but that doesn't mean they get to stay here.

14

Best_Change4155 21 hr ago +13

The issue here is they were rejected for asylum and refuse to go back home. We can't force countries to take them without bribing those countries.

13

ekho44 21 hr ago +8

You still shouldn't send them to a failed state that's embroiled in a civil war.

8

Wallsworth1230 21 hr ago +9

Well they have to go somewhere. The whole point of why they can't go back to Colombia is because they filed a legal motion to refuse going back there claiming they would face persecution. A judge approved it and ordered they can't be sent home. So be it. But that doesn't mean they get to stay here. If we could make a deal with a safer country like Italy or whatever to let us deport whoever we want there then sure that would be fine. But so far only Congo has made that deal, so Congo it is.

9

Best_Change4155 21 hr ago +6

So where should you send them? Edit: I am not saying this to be facetious or anything. But you have to send them somewhere. If you don't send them anywhere, you end up with the situation that Biden had; 2 million illegal entries a year.

6

hannabarberaisawhore 21 hr ago +1

I’m not trying to be argumentative, I’m trying to wrap my head around this cause wtf! Booting someone out makes sense, booting them out across an ocean they’ve never even crossed makes zero sense to me. The USA with all it’s money can’t bribe Colombia?

1

Best_Change4155 21 hr ago +5

My guess is it is more expensive. Also the current leader there hates our guts. We did bribe El Salvador. But frankly "bribed to take deportees" doesn't scream "good government."

5

SpiderHomeNoWayMan 20 hr ago +2

That's the real issue I have with this. You have to be crooked to be okay taking in a bunch of lawbreakers with no historical or cultural ties to your country, especially when those resources could go to your own citizens. But I also believe most campaigns for stopping illegal immigration altogether are a sham. Too many corporate donors benefit from the c**** labor, and having a consistent population of underpaid workers with restricted freedom is good leverage to have.

2

Best_Change4155 18 hr ago +5

>But I also believe most campaigns for stopping illegal immigration altogether are a sham Not to give Trump too much credit given the insane way he accomplished it, but if you look at Southwestern Border encounters, we are at like 15k monthly. During the Biden Administration we were at **over 150k** monthly. So he **did** stop the flow. For whatever that's worth.

5

Aloysiusakamud 19 hr ago +2

Plus, don't know the language, have no type of support system, don't know the culture, country they were sent to is in civil war. And, are imprisoned or slave labor for an offense that is classified as a misdemeanor in the US. It's also the most expensive way to go about it. Trump is spending up to three times as much as the Biden administration did to deport less people. He also spent around three times as much to deport less people versus Obama's either term. As far as deporting actual criminals the rank is Obama, Trump, Biden. But you also have to account for Covid being more of a factor in Bidens term than Trumps.

2

Wallsworth1230 21 hr ago +6

The people being deported are the ones who filed a legal appeal refusing to go back to Colombia claiming they faced persecution there. So be it. But that doesn't mean they get to stay here. And so far Congo has been the only country willing to let us send deportees there. If a more prosperous country like Italy was willing to give us permission to send whoever we want there, then sure that would be fine. But they haven't, so for now the options are you go home or you go to Congo.

6

ApprehensivePay1735 21 hr ago -3

I genuinely hope the world gives you the same empathy you give others in times of crisis.

-3

Wallsworth1230 21 hr ago +4

Empathy is often downstream of logistics. We are a finite country with a finite capacity to care for the needy people of the world. Jesus served the poor by using supernatural powers to multiply finite supplies of fish and bread. We don't have supernatural powers to duplicate resources like a Runescape glitch. Sorry man, but we aren't capable of letting the entire impoverished populations of the planet walk into our country.

4

ApprehensivePay1735 21 hr ago -2

I genuinely hope you run afoul of the worst failures of American healthcare so you can understand first hand the human suffering wrought by down stream logistics.

-2

SpiderHomeNoWayMan 20 hr ago

I look at it as a supply and demand problem. Every legal immigrant is a demand meeting supply (quota). And every illegal immigrant represents an unwanted surplus in demand. If you let so many people get in illegally you already locked yourself into the more costly option of locating and deporting every one of them. So, it's better to nip the problem in the bud. Quell the demand. Don't give people a reason to bypass the system.

0

Framboise33 22 hr ago -2

Exactly. It's a deterrent.

-2

thenamelesswun 21 hr ago +3

The DRC is in war the same way the US is in war. It’s a very small and localized conflict that won’t affect 99% of Congolese. And judging from the photos he’s living well in Kinshasa.

3

smokeyleo13 1 day ago -2

The misery, cruelty, and expense (its cheaper to fly to Bogota than Kinshasa) of it all is a selling point for people that back this stupid immigration policy.

-2

thederlinwall 18 hr ago +6

Did anyone tell him that the Dow is at 50,000?

6

OutrageousSale334 22 hr ago +8

wtf?

8

Potential-Fan-6148 18 hr ago +15

They’re spending an ungodly amount of money to be cruel. This administration is EVIL.

15

Temporary_Second3290 22 hr ago +5

What the hell.

5

SarahAlicia 23 hr ago +10

“We swear under oath to you a usa judge we cannot go back to our home country for fear for our lives” “Okay cool the drc has a hotel and visas ready for you.” “Oh. I prefer to go back home. That stuff was 8 years ago it’s probably fine.” Either you can’t go back to your home country for fear of violence in which case your asylum case was valid but also can be handed off to any country who gives you asylum or actually your life isn’t in danger and you were lying about needing asylum because you thought it was an easy way to get around immigration laws.

10

HalcyonTraveler 23 hr ago +23

Utterly nonsensical logic. If someone’s house is on fire and you want to relocate them to an active volcano they might prefer to risk the fire. That doesn’t mean it’s safe.

23

Drasys 15 hr ago -6

You are quite possibly incapable of rational thought.

-6

HalcyonTraveler 13 hr ago +3

Ok 👍

3

tmrnwi 23 hr ago -5

Not a thought worth a damn. Not one.

-5

Sullafelix91 22 hr ago +3

in Congo still no good place to be them kill me buddy its a calamity Manu Chao - Rainin in Paradize (sic!)

3

AidenTai 1 day ago -11

So the person being interviewed claimed he couldn't be deported to Colombia because it was unsafe and he had direct threats against his life, and had remained in the US under that claim (wasn't granted asylum in the first safe country he entered, but he was told he wouldn't be deported to Colombia in any event). Anyways, he was sent to a safe country, provided housing, food, and residency permits all paid for by the US. But despite the safety and having everything paid for, he is now pushing to be repatriated to Colombia (and the Colombian government is also trying to help repatriate him)? Sounds like it wouldn't have been that terrible if he were just deported to Colombia instead of the Congo. The fact that every one of the deportees from the Western Hemisphere (South and Central Americans, mostly) is attempting to be repatriated would seem to suggest that returning to their home countries was not as dangerous as they stated in their failed asylum applications. So perhaps they were more like economic migrants taking advantage of the fact that their home countries generally weren't as safe as developed countries in order to get legal residency through asylum processes.

-11

cuerdo 1 day ago +45

is it possible that Congo is even more dangerous than Colombia?

45

thenamelesswun 21 hr ago +3

No. Colombia is significantly more dangerous than DR Congo. And the detainees were sent to Kinshasa, the capital, which is the safest part of the DRC.

3

[deleted] 1 day ago -30

[removed]

-30

thenamelesswun 21 hr ago +2

Funny, but the DRC is a lot more safe than Colombia. The migrants want to move back to Colombia because they’re familiar with the culture(they can’t speak French), not out of any fear for their safety there.

2

LifeGainsss 1 day ago +21

"You think you had it bad in Columbia? We'll drop you in the middle of a literal war zone and you'll *beg* for Columbia"

21

Khamvom 1 day ago +27

*Colombia

27

xX609s-hartXx 1 day ago +3

"Hey, the government is doing something blatantly illegal but at least that one guy got fucked over by it!"

3

Wallsworth1230 23 hr ago +13

Its not illegal at all. If you want to argue its immoral, then that's a valid opinion. But there is no law which says illegal immigrants can only be deported to their country of origin. They don't have to go home. But they do have to go.

13

AidenTai 1 day ago -18

Deportations to third countries aren't illegal per se.

-18

SweeterThanYoohoo 1 day ago -4

Ah, per se, the pinnacle of human legal doctrine. Definitely what we should levy moral judgments on, at least. sheesh

-4

Wallsworth1230 23 hr ago +16

Laws and morals are not the same thing. Deportations are not illegal. Neither is deporting to an alternative country. There is no law which says illegal immigrants must only be deported to their country of origin. They don't have to go home. But they do have to go.

16

Yuukiko_ 1 day ago -2

Or maybe theyre more in danger in Congo than Columbia?

-2

AidenTai 1 day ago -17

Can't even spell the name of the country?

-17

clgoh 1 day ago +7

Cungo. Got it.

7

elbenji 1 day ago +1

There are levels lol The DRC is one of the most dangerous places on Earth. It's not like they sent them to Nicaragua

1

thenamelesswun 21 hr ago +2

No, it’s not. Colombia is uniquely violent in ways the DRC isn’t.

2

Mysterious_Past6277 1 day ago -20

That isnt the narrative chuck wants, stop reporting the truth that they lied about the dangers! U must be som kinda racist for picking up on that, only racists cover fraud! /s

-20

elbenji 1 day ago +4

Lol it's probably safer running from gangs in Colombia than being in an active warzone

4

Silver_Adagio138 22 hr ago -4

Why isn’t this human trafficking?

-4

DaMusicalGamer 19 hr ago +7

Because "human trafficking" is not just taking someone from one place to another against their will. It has to be in order to gain something from the person, whether it's sexual, monetary profit, or labor. The US is just leaving deportees for no other reason than to get rid of them.

7

Aloysiusakamud 18 hr ago -3

Don't they use slave labor in the Congo though? In the mines?

-3

AdSevere1274 22 hr ago -2

It is to a large degree.. It is bilateral agreement in human trafficking.. If these people are even released, they may not have even enough cash to go anywhere...

-2

zennim 22 hr ago -3

It is.

-3

RemarkableReturn8400 17 hr ago +1

Colombian mercenaries are in sudan

1

EverweaveRogue 8 hr ago +1

So genuine question here, what are these people supposed to do in (insert random african country)? Like they have no money, don't speak the local language, have no support network, are a different race/ethnicity, maybe a different religion, don't want to be there, the residents probably are just as confused as them why they are in (insert random african country) they arent citizens, no path forward to a green card or the equivalent, aren't in the local system, and they could literally just walk away and make their way to anywhere in the world and no one would be able to track them, if anyone cares to, which they dont. I don't understand the logic. Please explain

1

don00000 23 hr ago -14

They come here illegally and all of sudden it’s our burden to get them somewhere that’s amenable to them? I don’t really care where they’re shipped as long as it’s outside our borders.

-14

CombatMuffin 20 hr ago +5

Dismissing humans to any fate just because you consider them undesirables is exactly the kind of popular policy that helped stir a second World War. May you find yourself living in interesting times.

5

Available_Finger_513 20 hr ago +6

They sent them to a country that is incredibly poor and actively in a civil war. That's just plain evil.

6

Appleberry-16 20 hr ago +2

Colombia but in Africa

2

schmeryn 22 hr ago -3

Yeah instead of them staying and contributing to our economy let’s pay millions of dollars to ship them to a strange land they’ve never been to before! You don’t care because you lack any shred of logic or empathy. It’s pathetic to be honest.

-3

AdSevere1274 22 hr ago -1

If you don't care then why anybody would care as to what you say.. Most of the refugees are caused by your perma wars and economic wars anyways.. Stop creating refugees.

-1

SpiderHomeNoWayMan 20 hr ago +1

You seem pretty scared of them

1

Eis_ber 17 hr ago +1

You know it's faster and cheaper to send them back to Colombia than *halfway across the world.* It's also inhumanly to treat people like products garbage.

1

don00000 15 hr ago +1

He refused to go back to Columbia

1

Ambitious-Tea-9923 19 hr ago +2

Welcome home not so bad now hum? When you leaving?

2

Juanbolastristes 18 hr ago +1

Why not Colombian to Colombia? This random displacement sounds weird.

1

Floklo 16 hr ago +5

Read the article.

5

Time_Money506 15 hr ago +1

More Congolese and Latin American mixes

1

HalcyonTraveler 23 hr ago -4

Why is it that they are so obsessed with sending people to west Africa specifically

-4

Savage_Whiskers 22 hr ago +18

I get your point but the Congos (both) are in Central Africa, not West Africa.

18

HalcyonTraveler 22 hr ago +3

Fair enough, that’s on me for mixing up regions.

3

SarahAlicia 23 hr ago +25

They aren’t. It’s just that west africa (well i would argue drc is central) is keen on having more people contribute to their economy and so they are the ones offering. In a lot of these countries the average age is like 20 because so many adults have died from war. You want more working aged people to offset all of your country’s children. Immigrants provide a great solution for that.

25

AdSevere1274 23 hr ago +15

Congo is running a pretty hot civil war and it probably needs new cash and economic deals so it has a low bar.

15

dexter_sinister 22 hr ago +7

The median age in those countries is in the teens because that’s how high the birth rate is.

7

DavidlikesPeace 21 hr ago +5

Bit of column A and B. Instability and fear of death normally lead to higher birth rates in a society, not lower. The fact that people die young, encourages people to have kids young (even at risk to the mother). That said, other factors abound. Family planning supplies are unavailable in many poor regions. And a society has to want and value small families. Perhaps the biggest factor to teen mothers comes from patriarchal societies that dismiss the value of women's education or work.

5

SarahAlicia 22 hr ago +2

Yeah but there’s also a reason there are only .6 males for every 1 female over 65. The civil war started 30 years ago and ended 23 years ago and it didn’t just kill people it prevented people from having babies and having more 30 year olds

2

Best_Change4155 21 hr ago +5

This is incorrect. If you refuse to go to your home country and you refuse to make other arrangements, arrangements will be made for you. The US government bribed a bunch of countries in order for them to take deportees. African countries are cheaper to bribe than Latin American ones. They could always go home and then try asylum in a neighboring country, like you are supposed to, instead of fleeing all the way to the US.

5

HalcyonTraveler 23 hr ago -4

So trafficking laborers then? Regardless it’s also been other countries in the region.

-4

tmrnwi 23 hr ago +10

West Africa agreed to it for $$$

10

apple_kicks 14 hr ago +1

I pretty sure nazis originally tried this method or planned to

1

SarahAlicia 23 hr ago -13

To those saying living in the drc is an immoral thing to do to someone are you also suggesting moving all 124 million drc citizens to america because it so bad there? What about economically? 6.7 BILLION people live on less than 11k a year. They could definitely make more money in america so should all 6.7 billion be allowed to move here? What are the goal posts here for unlivable countries?

-13

Savage_Whiskers 22 hr ago +5

Are you seriously this dense?

5

SarahAlicia 22 hr ago +3

I am looking for consistent application of rules. If the congo is too unsafe to live in then shouldn’t every resident be offered asylum? Or should asylum only be granted to those who first have the means to make it to the usa aka those with more to begin with?

3

AdSevere1274 23 hr ago +2

Who said that? no one has... You have borders and you could defend them. What you have done though is importing people for c**** labor and exiling them after using them.. Let me see you American not import c**** labor for a decade at least and then we talk.. Suddenly Americans have have found a cure for the illness that they have spread in their own mind. The sickness is your wars and coups. Don't start them in other continents and South America and create refugees knocking at your door.. They are coming to center of the empire constantly at war and running good squads and creating refugees. You are at it even now. Stop. Just stop.

2

SarahAlicia 22 hr ago +1

Look do i think the us’ immigration policies are as good as they could be ? No. We limit way too much, we don’t provide ways to allow for cyclical immigration, people are detained like prisoners instead of at most being given ankle bracelets to ensure they don’t try to evade detection if the court isn’t going their way. If asylum is denied we should provide a commercial flight to a country they get to choose from a list that agree to give them asylum. Instead again we basically kidnapped these guys. But actively deterring people from entering, actively trying to deport them through really long court cases that cost a fortune, is not what i would consider importing people. The usa does very little to attract this labor and a lot to prevent it and end it. We could do more but we are definitely not encouraging it.

1

Eis_ber 17 hr ago +1

Is this your argument? No one is saying you should move entire populations to the US. What they are saying is that you don't ship people halfway across the world when it isn't necessary, where the person knows nothing and no one. Which is also at war, might I add, and will use these people as cannon fodder. Give them a fair trial and those that need to be deported should be deported to their respective countries.

1

Clean_Mix_5571 19 hr ago -9

At least they are safe from threats they faced in Colombia. Next thing should be to send every American listnookor that feels super oppressed to the free states like Gaza and Iran.

-9

Colombians stranded in Congo after being expelled from the US: ‘I never thought I would get to know Africa under these circumstances’

💬 Send a Message

177 Comments