ListNook

ItilityMSP 3 days ago +951

The U.S. has now sent deportees to Uganda under a third-country arrangement, despite many having no connection to the country at all. Expecting people to survive there without language, documents, money, or support is not humane. It’s cruel.

951

EmergencyCucumber905 3 days ago +281

They won't be leaving the jail. Uganda is one of the most violent, repressive, abusive governments in Africa.

281

AffordableTimeTravel 3 days ago +62

But why Uganda? Probably a private jail. Follow that money!

62

bigloudbang 3 days ago +57

Probably the first country to say yes to taking them in exchange for big sacks with dollar signs on them

57

EmergencyGrocery3238 3 days ago +3

Or the country who agreed to do it for the smallest fee?

3

zapporian 3 days ago +2

Seems a bit unfair to Uganda, tbh… > govt: presidential republic > president: Yoweri Museveni > been president: since 1986 oh

2

ActualSpiders 3 days ago +293

We are the Bad Guys.

293

McortezLSU 3 days ago +65

what gave it away? The endless wars? Providing assistance to genocide? The threats of conducting your own genocide? The execution of civillians by jackbooted paramilitaries in the streets? The unfathomable corruption? The cozing up with dictators and the american dispise for freedom and democracy.

65

Jazzlike_Leading5446 3 days ago +24

The great leader being a Nazi pedophile that spent time on Mossad's r*** island?

24

Hellguin 3 days ago +11

In MOST cases, we always have been.

11

666SpeedWeedDemon666 3 days ago +5

Always have been

5

Mortiis07 3 days ago +18

Don't worry they won't need any of that, they'll be locked up in prison

18

Soft_Fisherman4506 3 days ago

Of course they wont. Why eould uganda pay to house them?

0

evange 3 days ago +14

They speak English in Uganda.

14

International-Ad2501 3 days ago +6

This isn't deportation. Tondeport someone is to return them to there country of origin. This is renditioning. Its very bad.

6

Zwezeriklover 3 days ago

It will be legal to do in the EU in about 2 months because our parliament, commission etc. agreed to do it as part of the migration pact. Honestly seems like a good move, because 20% of rejected asylum seekers now leave the EU and our whole system is based on that.

0

[deleted] 3 days ago -22

[removed]

-22

SirStrontium 3 days ago +13

The vast majority of people here illegally have at least some knowledge of English, they find jobs easily that pay more than they would make back home, and live in communities with other people that speak their language. Being shipped to Uganda where there’s *zero* safe communities for them is not the same.

13

Impossible_Run1867 3 days ago +3

Also the US did not have an official language formally until Drumpf signed an EO to make it so last March, because we *used to* be proud to be a country of immigrants, by immigrants, and for immigrants, with a fusion of all the best parts of their individual cultures (in theory, I'm not ignorant to the reality of racism in our past and present)

3

Busy_Lunch_5520 3 days ago +6

Oh sod off.. the current US government is proving to be one of the cruelest with 0 regard for human life. If you still support them, it says a lot about you. And none of it is good.

6

enek101 3 days ago +852

Huh.. the US just created a whole new caste. "nationless" this cant possibly go bad. /s

852

BurningPenguin 3 days ago +414

As a german, this sounds kinda familiar. Can't put my finger on the why, though. /s

414

MaximumSyrup3099 3 days ago +141

Hey, it's not like we're building concentration camps. /s

141

Barr3lAg3d 3 days ago +89

Concentration Warehouses

89

jeremyaboyd 3 days ago +40

Hey now, warehouses have building codes they must be built to! You know what doesn’t need a building code? Cages.

40

MarketingSpecial6604 3 days ago +5

But they aren't building them, they are buying them.

5

livsjollyranchers 3 days ago +1

Is Joe Goldberg head of the department?

1

mjayultra 3 days ago +24

My dumbass MAGA father told me that he’s seeing warehouses pop up everywhere and I’m like….YEAH, WHY IS THAT

24

livsjollyranchers 3 days ago +12

American factories! Manufacturing jobs! Make great agaigiiggigigigiuurrghgh.

12

cyclika 3 days ago +14

I'm 100% certain that the only reason we have concentration camps and not mass death camps is that this is more profitable.

14

BurningPenguin 3 days ago +19

Fun fact: The original death camps were outside German borders, so they could hide the worst atrocities from the public. And one of the reasons they were built, was because deporting people became impractical and expensive.

19

enek101 3 days ago +10

That tracks Costs money to kill people.. Ammunition disposal cover up.. Why kill em when we can sell em! Huh sadly i meant that to be a bit of dark humor but after re reading its kinda sad.. that this conversation literally probably happened =( Fck

10

Blagsc 3 days ago +3

To be fair not even ironically nazi germany started a lot of camps under "free labor that also kills the jews" and then found out how hard it is to keep that many people in a camp. The "huh this isnt a cost saver" realisation came pretty quickly They were always extermination camps, but the nazis ramped up the killing as it got more expensive (and as also ramped it up when it became more "acceptable" internally) Gotta remember they were willing to *still* run gas chambers even after they melted down the doors for bullets

3

ExoMonk 3 days ago +4

In before Amazon figures out they can open a warehouse/jail with "employees" they can pay pennies on the dollar. It might already exist, but for my sanity I choose not to look it up.

4

Kortok2012 3 days ago +2

Germany didn’t have access to alligator infested swamps

2

Curious-Path4549 3 days ago +2

but plenty of typhus-how did people last this long on the planet being so terrible

2

MechaRon 3 days ago +1

You forgot again.

1

VariationDry 3 days ago +1

Just warehouses!

1

mysecondaccountanon 3 days ago +1

And it’s not like we’re starting to ask for [lists of Jews](https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/31/us/politics/trump-jews-penn-list-judge.html) or anything, that’d be really on the nose >!/s!<

1

TheForeverUnbanned 3 days ago +15

Pfft we’re using planes not trains it’s super different I mean not that different

15

Money-Ad8553 3 days ago +1

Yeah, well, Germany could be doing a lot more to oppose Trump the way Spain, Ireland, and France is. Seriously, why is Berlin so submissive?

1

BurningPenguin 3 days ago +3

Probably because there are some CDU idiots trying to copy that Trump style campaign bullshit, despite having the charisma of a wet french fry. There are also lots of attempts by Maga-related groups to try and influence parties all over Europe. Here's a German article about that: https://correctiv.org/aktuelles/trump-und-europa/2025/03/12/geld-macht-kampagnen-der-lange-arm-von-team-trump-2/

3

Money-Ad8553 3 days ago +2

of course, Im not trying to insult you or anything. I still have links with Germany (Im a member of Goethe Institut here in US) Thanks for the article

2

BurningPenguin 3 days ago +5

Don't worry, i don't feel insulted. It's a fair question, and i'm wondering myself a lot of times. It's so frustrating knowing that there are up to 50 parties to choose from, and my fellow countrymen and women decided to give the party with the most corruption scandals *yet another chance*.

5

wanderingpeddlar 3 days ago +51

People without a nation is not new. It is called being stateless. [https://www.unhcr.org/about-unhcr/who-we-protect/stateless-people](https://www.unhcr.org/about-unhcr/who-we-protect/stateless-people) The UN has been working for a while to try and get stateless people a passport somewhere, anywhere. These people are nothing more then the new kids on the block. The Roma in Europe are an example of long term stateless people. Right now there is about 4.4 million stateless people that number is surely low but it is about the best that can be counted ATM And I have to admit that I am not surprised that this administration would do this to people

51

AuroraFinem 3 days ago +17

While deporting to 3rd party countries is patently absurd, it doesn’t make anyone stateless any more than they were before, they aren’t revoking citizenship from anyone by doing this. The outrage that we’re doing this at all is warranted, but we need to be accurate or it makes it easy for people to dismiss it as overreacting and fear mongering.

17

Neurobeak 3 days ago +2

Nope, Latvia and Estonia have this for more than 30 years now. "Alien passports" are a thing there.

2

TheGoodKindOfPurple 3 days ago +551

Up until now I had thought that deportation ment sending people to their country of origin. This is one of those things that will be brought up for decades to illustrate the disregard for human decency this government is so fond of.

551

Kahzgul 3 days ago +206

This regime has been sending people to third countries since it took power.

206

TheGoodKindOfPurple 3 days ago +52

Yes, I was imprecise in my use of now. Should have said something like up until the current administration but I never was outstanding at grammar.

52

Kahzgul 3 days ago +9

Ahh gotcha.

9

Shaq_Bolton 3 days ago +1

The theory behind it makes sense but since it’s under the Trump administration it will be exploited, corrupt and untrustworthy. Sometimes someone’s home country would refuse to take them back, typically because they were guilty of some crime in their home country or gang connections etc. Under U.S law those individuals couldn’t be detained in the U.S for more than 90 days after the refusal, so they were released back into the U.S. Hypothetically those prisons are created so the U.S. doesn’t have release people into U.S. communities known to be murderers, rapists etc in their home country.

1

tarion_914 3 days ago +9

I believe the term is human trafficking.

9

Bakedfresh420 3 days ago +76

Oh man you didn’t hear about CECOT? We were shipping immigrants to a Supermax in El Salvador and most of them were from Venezuela

76

AOCMarryMe 3 days ago +28

We've just kind of collectively stopped talking about it.

28

AlienPearl 3 days ago +8

Just like the Epstein files. The Iran distraction war is working…

8

External-Praline-451 3 days ago +21

Deportation is the word being used to hide what they're really doing - sending people to concentration camps for an indefinite term, with no judicial oversight or transparency and no legal defence to examine if they charges of being "illegal" are even valid.

21

Shaq_Bolton 3 days ago +3

What are they supposed to do? Typically the reason a country refuses to do accept one of their own citizens is because they’re a known violent criminal there. U.S. law doesn’t allow you to detain them for more than 90 days after refusal and have to be released. It’s either send these people there or let a known child predator, murderer or rapist into U.S. communities. They aren’t just picking people up and sending them to El Salvador or Uganda. They’re picking people up, trying to send them to their home country, their country is like hell naw we’re not crazy we’re not taking that person back. Then it’s either send them to somewhere who take them or release them into the U.S.

3

External-Praline-451 3 days ago +3

How do you know what they're doing? There's no transparency or judicial review, or access to proper defence to ensure a fair process. And who on earth believes that indefinite incarceration in somewhere like Uganda with atrocious human rights is appropriate for anyone? Let alone people who've perhaps lived in the US since they were children and were brought there by parents? Or separating families? What is the point of it all? How does it improve anyone's life? Has life improved in the US since they started this? All I'm seeing is children being afraid to go to school and spiralling living costs. Even the Tories in the UK's Rwanda plan was better than this - they at least gave people they deported a financial start and housing, with protection assured by the government. Not locking them up in a concentration camp indefinitely. It is utterly reprehensible.

3

Shaq_Bolton 3 days ago -2

They’re deporting people who would be able to use the Zadvydas vs Davis loophole to be released back into the United States. Thousands of known criminals in their home country have been released back into the U.S. under this loophole in the past decade. These aren’t random Mexican roofers picked up by ICE that they decided to send there instead of Mexico. They’re generally people so bad that their own country refuses to take them back. So… what do you, you have this guy from Venezuela who you know committed murders there and Venezuela doesn’t want him back. You have two options, release him back onto U.S streets or send him somewhere that will take him? Please answer this question. It’s the crux of it. The only thing I don’t like about it is it’s being run by the Trump administration, so I’m sure there’s a mixture of mistakes, ineptitude and corruption.

-2

External-Praline-451 3 days ago +1

They're not deporting criminals. Or not many of them. They're deporting ordinary people. You're obviously buying the propaganda without actually listening to what's happening in communities.

1

Shaq_Bolton 3 days ago

lol ok. I’m from and live in a city that’s 82% Hispanic. Yes, they are deporting ordinary people but those ordinary people are being deported to their home countries because their home countries accept them. I’m personally against the tactics that ICE uses and am very against their broad spectrum of targeting. That being said, once again these people being sent to Uganda or El Salvador are people whose own countries are refusing them, hence the nationless part. It would be utterly insane and infinitely more expensive with zero pay off just to randomly send ordinary people there. As stated in my previous comment, these are people who would be let on to the streets due the loophole. Thousands of known criminals have been released due to this loophole and that’s a documented fact. I ask you again to answer the question in my previous comment. You cannot prosecute someone for a crime committed in Honduras in the U.S. you cannot hold someone indefinitely in the U.S. Do you let a known child predator onto U.S. streets or send them to somewhere that will take him because Honduras refuses to?

0

ThatLeetGuy 3 days ago

Ordinary people go back to their country. Countries that deny them don't want them back for a reason. Anyone who is illegally in the US should be deported back to their home country, not just the criminals. And if their home country won't accept them because they are a criminal, it's not our responsibility to care for or to nurture them. Democrats advocated for it long before the 'woke' era. Now that Trump wants it, Democrats are pretending like they want illegals in the country just so that they can earn votes. They're not saving democracy, they're abusing it for personal gain. You're the one buying the propaganda wholesale.

0

hamoc10 3 days ago +11

Did you forget about the El Salvadoran prison deportations?

11

snasna102 3 days ago +2

Maybe teach it in civics class and the importance of being more than a single issue voter

2

adoreroda 3 days ago +5

Yep. Also these people may legitimately be stranded. If they don't have passports or Uganda doesn't have a diplomatic mission for them to even renew a passport.

5

BakedSteak 3 days ago +10

What?! How many people are this unaware of exactly what’s happening??

10

ForwardQuestion8437 3 days ago +11

Everyone is aware. Just the ones that support maga are ok with it.

11

frenchfreer 3 days ago +6

That is what deportation means. What this administration is doing is human trafficking.

6

digiorno 3 days ago +2

Exile would be a better term than deportation.

2

UnableWishbone3364 3 days ago +5

if those countries of origin wanted those people back, they would have asked. This third-country agreement was to send people who have already been rejected by their own nation in a vast majority of these cases. Would you like to guess why?

5

EsotericMysticism2 3 days ago +4

Yes, but often their country of origin refuses to take them back (a violation of various treaties)

4

donkeybrainhero 3 days ago +4

That doesn't make it acceptable to send them to a country even more foreign to them with far worse human rights issues.

4

EsotericMysticism2 3 days ago +2

What should happen to the countries that refuse to take back their citizens ,

2

donkeybrainhero 3 days ago +1

What happens to any country that breaks a law? Nothing. Unless the US sanctions them, of course.

1

hamoc10 3 days ago -2

Can you give an example of this?

-2

EsotericMysticism2 3 days ago +5

They are called recalcitrant countries, countries like Cuba, Venezuela, Honduras etc etc [https://www.nafsa.org/regulatory-information/travel-bans-and-restrictions](https://www.nafsa.org/regulatory-information/travel-bans-and-restrictions) [https://www.newsweek.com/map-shows-which-countries-refuse-take-back-deported-migrants-2010464](https://www.newsweek.com/map-shows-which-countries-refuse-take-back-deported-migrants-2010464) They are supposed to be required to take back their citizens

5

Soft_Fisherman4506 3 days ago +1

Australia been doing it for years!

1

Ancient_Sun_2061 3 days ago +130

Offshoring prisons - new capitalism model unlocked

130

pnutbrutal 3 days ago +94

It’s exactly what the nazis did with concentration camps. Many were in other countries like Poland. And while we’re at it would love people to stop saying deported. It’s not deportation if it’s to a third country. It’s human trafficking.

94

kinko_the_carp 3 days ago +33

It’s also what Australia and Denmark both did until very recently. Look up Nauru and Manus. Denmark used Rwanda. We are just taking their ideas.

33

Narrow-Key365 3 days ago +6

Nauru is back open fwiw

6

FlowAffect 3 days ago +10

Denmarks "Rwanda-Plan" never sent people to Rwanda, it was planned, but never happened due to legal troubles. Australia+ Nauru / Manus is correct.

10

kinko_the_carp 3 days ago +7

Got it - I remember Denmark had a facility setup and everything. I think, eventually, they just started removing asylees back to Syria / Afghanistan / etc. I guess they never got as far as offshoring people. The UK tried as well but also failed. I guess it’s just the US and Australia then.

7

zapporian 3 days ago +1

Ok, so: Australia, the country formed by the UK exiling its undesirables to a (very large) island, now has its own arrangements with also inhabited, much tinier islands to temporarily / indefinitely exile unwanted / wanna-be australians to? (kinda the opposite process, ish, but I digress)

1

GypsyisaCat 3 days ago +1

That's no quite true. Australia used Nauru and Manus for offshore processing (which, by my understanding, is still a human rights violation), but detainees could be repatriated home whenever they asked. And it was used specifically for people who were trying to come here without a visa, by boat.

1

kinko_the_carp 3 days ago +1

Well, sure, but some have been there for 15+ years. So it’s de facto the same thing. The US is sending those who came by land without inspection - which is also the same. Trump even said this idea came from Australia. Explicitly. He told Turnbull “Wow, you’re worse than I am” when he implemented the policy last time.

1

I_am_omning_it 3 days ago +1

It was exactly what Nazis did with extermination camps. Concentration camps were occasionally in Germany to accommodate businesses (nothing cheaper than slave labor), but all the planned extermination camps were in Poland.

1

Another_Slut_Dragon 3 days ago +8

El Salvador has been running for over a year now.

8

enek101 3 days ago +10

Guantanamo called. They asked if you heard of them. For real tho This has been a thing for a while. And if you do some digging it goes pretty deep. I mean in the afghan war the US maintained international prison. My cousin did a stupid thing and found him self in one for a few months. We've been out sourcing Criminals for a while. This is the first time we have outsourced innocents. I think the scary implication to all of this is If they can revoke the Birthright Citizenship coupled with Deporting "Illegals" to random country's its a matter of time before the US will be able to strip a full blooded american of any citizenship and ban them from the country This whole scenario sets a very scary precedence

10

hamoc10 3 days ago +6

Guantanamo is a slightly different nightmare. That’s a US-run facility.

6

StrategicCarry 3 days ago +44

So this is even worse than the UK's Rwanda Plan. In the Rwanda plan the UK sent asylum seekers to Rwanda for processing their claims. If their claims were unsuccessful, they were sent back to their original country. If the claim was successful, they would be settled in Rwanda, not the UK. But at least they would be given permanent residency, housing, a cash payment (£20,000-30,000) and the UK was investing in Rwanda to help provide housing and jobs for the immigrants. This is just shipping them to Uganda for processing at which point they will be sent somewhere else. I highly doubt we are investing in Uganda to the same degree to accommodate these people. Oh and before it was cancelled by the Labour government, the Rwanda plan cost £700 million ($927 million) and resettled a grand total of four people.

44

Soft_Fisherman4506 3 days ago +8

Also the uk is now being sued by rwanda for dropping the scheme.

8

dudee62 3 days ago +21

They are not deportees. That means to send back to their country of origin.

21

versus_gravity 3 days ago +2

That's repatriation, but yeah, we have all long understood that's *precisely* what happens when somebody is deported.

2

how-tobe 3 days ago +17

Jesus Christ. Missing family members are now in a whole nother continent. Psychotic

17

rascallyrascal1511 3 days ago +39

I can't help but to wonder how much it costs taxpayers to fly people to far-away countries such as Uganda. How many of these people has the US had to fly back because they were wrongly deported? How is this the most efficient way to go?

39

HelloKatie5808 3 days ago +38

It’s even worse than just transportation costs. We’re paying these countries to take the deportees.

38

pintita 3 days ago +11

It's not about the cost, the cruelty is the point.

11

hamoc10 3 days ago +3

It was never about the money.

3

xyzzy321 3 days ago +1

> how much it costs Whatever it costs, you can bet your bottom dollar that *he* and his cronies are pocketing all of the money related to transportation.

1

PrefersEarlGrey 3 days ago +52

Human Trafficking. Call it what it is you cowards, how can you be "deported" to a country you never lived?

52

Shaq_Bolton 3 days ago +1

I was outraged by it when I first heard of it but looking into it the only problem I have is knowing how mismanaged and corrupt it will be under Trump. They’re only supposed to be sending people whose own countries just straight up refuse to take them. Typically because they’re know violent criminals, gang members etc. Under U.S law they had to release these people 90 days after refusal back into the U.S. The U.S shouldn’t be forced to release people who are known child predators, murderers, rapists in Honduras into U.S. communities because they snuck their way in here.

1

Wonderful_Amoeba_649 3 days ago +1

You mean I’m supposed to believe when my or a third world nation willing to participate in this’s word that someone is a gang member or child predator? The President is a known child predator, rapist, and murderer. You cannot be serious that you would genuinely take the US government at its word to only do these things to the “bad guys.” The US government *is* the f****** bad guys lmao. Our President essentially threatened to nuke Iran today in the last 48 hours and then said he would give them more time to give him what he wants. What do you mean you actually trust this government to truthfully identify who is a criminal needing third world deportation and who is a normal person like you and me?

1

Shaq_Bolton 3 days ago +1

How is it just the U.S governments word? Didn’t the Jamaican just accept one of these people they previously refused because they didn’t want the bad press? Where are the governments of these people claiming their citizens are being sent to these places even though they’re willing to take them back? A single instance would cause an international outrage. The closest I can think of was an El Salvadoran being sent to a facility in El Salvador. Which at the point he’s in El Salvador, is their decision. You can forget about the standard Trump rant, I’ve voted against the guy three times for three candidates I hated and if you think if democrats will close these facilities when they’re in power I got a bridge to sell you. You’re clearly just raging against an issue you have no idea about. Clogging up the airways and taking away from actual abuses of the Trump regime. Actually look into the subject before repeating rants you saw online.

1

Wonderful_Amoeba_649 3 days ago +1

I can’t dignify willful ignorance or disguised conservative ragebait, whichever one this is, with a serious response. Rationalizing the context of recently spilled milk while the fridge isn’t even plugged in and house around it is falling to pieces is waste of everyone’s time. But by all means, keep rationalizing the spilled milk and hiding behind strawman arguments about Democrat policy if that’s what floats your boat. I appreciate that you didn’t refute Trump himself is a deplorable who should be deported himself though.

1

EmergencyCucumber905 3 days ago +22

[https://www.state.gov/reports/2024-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/uganda](https://www.state.gov/reports/2024-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/uganda) > Significant human rights issues included credible reports of: arbitrary or unlawful killings; disappearances; torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment; arbitrary arrest or detention; transnational repression against individuals in another country; unlawful recruitment or use of children in armed conflict by nonstate armed groups; serious restrictions on freedom of expression and media freedom, including violence or threats of violence against journalists, and censorship; and significant presence of any of the worst forms of child labor.

22

NiobiumThorn 3 days ago +39

So homosexuality is a criminal offence in Uganda. *Punishable by death.* Sponsored by American Christian Nationalists. This is sending people to a third country where many can expect to be slaughtered for who they are. Trans people are typically grouped in with gay people in mass extermination situations. And recently a law was passed which allows for ICE to detain you for having a passport which doesn't match what the agent decides is your birth sex. [Not true? Good fuckin luck convincing the camp guard after the v-coding] Behold the wheels of genocide turn.

39

TheAskewOne 3 days ago +7

That’s called rendition and is fully unconstitutional.

7

Im_better_than__u 3 days ago +10

Any guesses as to who is profiting from those flights to Uganda?

10

Gayyymer 3 days ago +2

Same here, I wanna know. As someone who works in aviation as a flight attendant, I’m torn about how our own industry is being weaponized against our people and its profit going into someone’s pockets :/

2

Jerdanhowell 3 days ago +10

Illegal human trafficking

10

287fiddy 3 days ago +8

It's not deportation It's detention paid for by American Taxpayers With a little something something going back to Trump

8

FavRootWorker 3 days ago +11

Uganda is pathetic for accepting these deportees. Anything for money i guess.

11

Wide-Yogurtcloset213 3 days ago +4

Why oh why? How can this be legal? I’m so heartbroken! Is this Nazi Germany sending people off to concentration camps nowhere near their homeland? If there is a hell, that’s where Trump and ALL of his ass kissers are going!!!!!

4

Cetun 3 days ago +6

~~Madagascar~~ Uganda Plan

6

Prestigious_Tie_8734 3 days ago +3

Anyone able to confirm the citizenship of the immigrants? I’m assuming most are South American countries? The USA has a rise in Latino, Indian, and African immigrants. Are they sending the Africans to Uganda or everyone?

3

queenringlets 3 days ago +6

Not specifically but two got repatriated to Jamaica and Cambodia though so I assume those two were from there. Uganda itself said they prefer Africans but they don’t need to be African, just no criminal record and no unaccompanied minors. I think it’s gross of them but I guess they need/want the money.

6

HeatWaveToTheCrowd 3 days ago +3

History will not be kind to this administration, or to grandpa Don.

3

GearTwunk 3 days ago +13

I'm sure the deportees were from Uganda /s

13

UncleBengazi 3 days ago +23

Yeah, it says it right in the title. 'third-country' means not the country of origin.

23

cannot_walk_barefoot 3 days ago +22

So are these people being sent Uganda have any way of getting home? Do they have any documentation? So they're stuck in a random country with no money, papers or support? So they're basically slaves to whoever picks them up? Or am I missing something

22

DevonLuck24 3 days ago +16

nope, sounds like you got it exactly right

16

malibuklw 3 days ago +4

They’re likely being imprisoned when they get there

4

Shaq_Bolton 3 days ago +1

They have no way back to their home country because their home country straight up refused to accept them back. Typically because they’re known violent criminals in those countries. Under U.S. law these people can’t be detained here for more than 90 days after refusal by their home nation. So the U.S. options are either to release people who are known rapists, murderers etc in their home country on to the U.S. streets or send them to a country who will take them. The people being sent there aren’t some random Mexican roofer ICE picked up and decided to send there instead of Mexico. They’re people so bad their own country refuses to let them back in.

1

Y0___0Y 3 days ago +4

I want Uganda sanctioned to hell for gleefully working with a criminal president to imprison people for life with no trial… Democrats should be reaching out to Ugandan leadership and threatening them for doing this shit.

4

leaonas 3 days ago +5

Just like Germany shipping Jews, homeless, gays and trans people to Poland Auschwitz concentration and extermination camp. Funny home history repeats it’s. Mr Tivnin warned us back in high school..

5

Fanfics 3 days ago +2

So basically it's less 'deportation' and more 'exile'

2

LeoSolaris 3 days ago +2

Or "foreign concentration camp" if you're feeling historically inclined and particularly bleak. It's how the last ones were shielded from public outcry.

2

Pdizzle0303 3 days ago +2

"Uganda said it had reached a deal with the US to take in people from third countries who might not get asylum in the US but were “reluctant” to be sent back to their home countries."

2

BulletTooth_Tony1 3 days ago +2

Isn't Uganda still run by f****** Idi Amin's brother or cousin or something?

2

DefiantSmoke1569 3 days ago +2

This is extraordinary rendition.

2

Delybe 3 days ago +5

How many are American citizens?

5

TrashCapable 3 days ago +1

Thisn is illegal human trafficking. Plain and simple. We as a nation need to see the list of people and their origin countries for vetting. Of course this administration will not allow this as it will expose their illegality and cruelty.

1

JG1991 3 days ago +2

Were they by any chance Mormon missionaries...?

2

___turfduck___ 3 days ago +1

Cool! Like Lion King!

1

Capable_Kiwi2514 3 days ago +2

Could call them 'rendition flights' instead of being oblique about it.

2

[deleted] 3 days ago +1

[deleted]

1

FestusPowerLoL 3 days ago +7

I doubt it would be for that express purpose? The US (administratively) already doesn't care about Palestine, you'll probably see political opponents being shipped off before you see mass ethnic cleansing of Palestinians by the US.

7

[deleted] 3 days ago +1

[deleted]

1

FestusPowerLoL 3 days ago +2

There are already Venezuelans, Mexicans, Guatemalans, Columbians, Caribbeans, Koreans etc. that are getting deported, a lot of which are being deported to third countries like Uganda, where they later may or may not get repatriated back to their "home countries". If Palestinians get similar treatment it's not because they're Palestinian. It's because the administration is treating every detainee they have inhumanely. There's no need for that fixation.

2

espressocycle 3 days ago +3

No, secretive Israeli NGOs are sending Gazans to South Africa.

3

CharcoalGreyWolf 3 days ago +1

We have met the shithole country and it is US (u.s.).

1

One-Reflection-4826 3 days ago +1

out of sight. out of mind. out of human rights. thats MAGA for you.

1

capz1121 3 days ago +1

What’s in it for Uganda? Why the hell else would they make a deal like this?

1

Fickle_Goose_4451 3 days ago +1

Its not deporting if its just to some random place theyre not originally from.

1

dsj79 3 days ago +1

I believe England did the same thing under conservative leadership. Sounds like same people directing those policies

1

Evilkenevil77 3 days ago +1

An utter and illegal outrage. A crime.

1

Deacon523 3 days ago +1

Arm up and don’t let them take you

1

bros402 3 days ago +1

this shit needs to be made illegal the second a Democrat is in office

1

JerryDipotosBurner 3 days ago +1

The sad reality is that the law allows this when the country of origin refuses to take them back. We need to scrap or refactor that law entirely, because this administration is abusing it to human traffic people.

1

IceInMyVain 3 days ago +1

I dont understand, I must naive. Even if you’re not from Uganda or even African you’ll be send there ? Does it apply to all immigrants or just those that look African ? I’m really intrigued by this process.

1

AccountNumeroThree 3 days ago +6

Anyone they want to send there.

6

Slight-Hedgehog259 3 days ago +1

And how much are we paying for that?;

1

not_caterpillar 3 days ago

doesnt that mean all "usa citizen" should be deported? all of you are immigrant. dont forget that you kill aborigin for their land you colonist

0

Arxanec 3 days ago -9

Hearing a lot of complaints but not a lot of solutions on how to deal with the illegal immigration problems. The problem should have never gotten this out of hand. Should of had stricter policies to begin with and harsher punishments so people wouldn't cross illegally. Every other civilized nation has processes for this.

-9

Uganda receives first US deportation flight under third-country agreement

💬 Send a Message

156 Comments