(Photo by U.S. Department of Homeland Security via Rawpixel/CC0 1.0 DEED)
On June 23, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled to allow the deportation of eight migrants to South Sudan, despite only one of these deportees being of South Sudanese origin. This decision came after Federal Judge Brian Murphy’s April 18th injunction that required deportable migrants sent to third countries—countries they have no ties to—to have the opportunity to prove that the country is not safe for them, and that they are at risk of torture if deported there.
On May 21, when Judge Murphy reviewed the case of the migrants to be sent to South Sudan, he ruled against their deportation, quoting the U.S. Government’s travel advisory that strongly warns against visiting South Sudan due to “crime, kidnapping, and armed conflict.”
The Trump administration successfully appealed the ruling. Because the Supreme Court considered the appeal an emergency, the order was unsigned, and the judges did not need to offer any reasoning. This ruling paves the way for mass deportations of migrants to potentially dangerous countries that the deportees have no cultural, linguistic, or ethnic ties to. It has been criticized for ignoring ‘due process’, a right enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, and for prioritizing the outsourcing of immigration over human dignity and protection.
U.S. Anti-Immigrant Attitudes
This decision aligns with the U.S.’s shift toward conservatism, a trend that has become prominent in much of the Western world over the past decade. The vision of free markets, individual freedoms, and globalization that liberalism fought for throughout the 20th century has come at a cost to citizens. The side effects of growing economic inequality, social isolation, and the marginalization of the working class have left voters disappointed with and distrustful of the status quo.
A key manifestation of this distrust is the increase in American anti-immigrant attitudes. According to a Pew Research Center poll, 78% of Americans consider the situation at the U.S.–Mexico border to be either a “crisis” or a “major problem” as of 2024. During the Biden administration, illegal border crossings reached an all-time high, with Border Patrol apprehending between 6,000 and 10,000 illegal migrants a month. Working-class Americans are experiencing increasing economic stressors as is, and the influx of immigrants is only increasing the amount of perceived competition they face.
Technological developments coupled with the globalization of supply chains are changing the way the labour market looks, particularly for blue-collar workers. Although in reality, there is no limit to the number of jobs that can exist, and jobs disappear and new jobs emerge all the time, it feels as if the labour market is shrinking. Immigrants— undocumented immigrants specifically—are taking over many of the lower-class manual labour jobs, creating a sense of competition that leaves many Americans feeling as if their livelihoods are in danger. In reality, immigrants have a positive effect on the economy.
A lack of affordable housing is worsening the anti-immigrant sentiments. Although the unemployment rate in 2023 was at an all-time low and purchasing power is 63% higher than it was in 1970, Americans are struggling more than ever to buy a home. Homeownership is a very big part of the American Dream, with most Americans viewing owning a home as a “greater achievement than raising a family, getting a college degree, or having a career.” However, there is a deficit in affordable housing—caused by lags in construction investment—which is forcing people to rent. The influx of immigrants is creating a real increase in competition for the houses on the market, which contributes to rent price hikes. To those unable to buy a home and struggling to afford rent, this can feel like an attack on the American identity and a matter of survival.
Trump Administration’s Immigration Policies
Politicians are weaponizing the distrust of immigrants that is prevalent among Americans. The Trump administration built its political platform on “Build A Wall” and “America First” campaigns that aim to crack down on illegal (and legal) migration to the U.S.
In reality, the focus on immigration as a threat to American identity and the U.S. economy is an intentional way of distracting from policy failures and reform. The Trump administration wants to avoid tackling income inequality and a lack of social welfare through the taxation of the rich, and they are using immigrants as the scapegoats for their mismanagement instead. After all, raising taxes would harm the interests of the wealthiest one percent, of which Trump is a member.
An example of these tactics is the new One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB), which recently passed. The Trump administration is touting this bill as the solution to all immigration problems because it invests more than $100 billion in border enforcement and the detention and deportation of unwanted immigrants.
However, they acquired the funding for this bill by slashing Medicaid and food stamps, two lifeline programs for lower-income families. Without these programs, their cost of living will rise significantly. In addition, the OBBB also contains tax breaks for high-income earners, meaning that they pay less for these policies rather than more. Economic inequality in the U.S. is bound to increase significantly as a direct result of this policy.
Why this Supreme Court Ruling?
When District Judge Brian Murphy ruled against deportations to third countries without giving deportees the chance to show that they would face danger in their destination, U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer appealed to the Supreme Court and requested an immediate stay on this decision. According to him, it was “wreaking havoc on the third-country removal process.”
The third-country removal process stems from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) directive issued on February 18, 2025. As it stands, many deportees with orders for removal are safeguarded from deportation by protections under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) or the U.N. Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Punishment (CAT). The February 18 directive recommended that ICE remove these deportees to countries where those protections do not apply.
The director applies to immigrants who have been previously apprehended at the border and identified as illegal. As such, they do not have a right to remain in the U.S. and have orders to be removed. However, if an immigrant can prove that they will face persecution or torture if they return, they can be granted protection from this order under the INA and/or CAT. The ICE Directive, however, makes the point that, although these immigrants may be unable to return to their country of origin, there is no reason why the U.S. must house them when another country is willing and able to do so.
The Escalating “War on Immigration”
Currently, a backlog of 3.5 million cases is holding up the processing of immigrants. Depending on where they file their cases, immigrants may have to wait four to six years for their court date. This backlog is leaving many undocumented immigrants residing in the U.S. while they wait. This is the group the Trump administration is targeting in particular.
Since Trump became the President, ICE and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have received high quotas on detentions and deportations that they must meet. To do so, it is easiest to begin with those with prior removal orders, as this is legal under immigration law and circumvents the need for court hearings. Avoiding these hearings is particularly attractive considering the backlogs that immigration courts currently face.
The war on immigration is being fought through forced disappearances by plain-clothes ICE agents, the indefinite detention of immigrants at for-profit detention centers at the border, and now, the removal of immigrants to countries they do not know, with dangerous consequences.
Due Process Under Threat
The ruling by the Supreme Court to allow the deportation of immigrants to third countries, and the subsequent deportation of eight people to South Sudan—with little notice or legal recourse—is being criticized, both from a legal and human rights perspective.
First of all, it is important to note that the ruling did not regard the legality of third country removals per se, but rather how much notice deportees should receive before it happens and what kind of legal mechanisms should be in place for them to plead the case for their lack of safety in the country they will be sent to. According to District Judge Brian Murphy, they should receive 15 days. According to the DHS, they should only need “minutes.” The eight men being sent to South Sudan received less than 16 hours.
This raises the question of whether the constitutional right to “due process” is being upheld. The Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from “depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The Supreme Court has held that this protection extends to all natural persons (i.e., human beings), regardless of race, colour, or citizenship.” This protection means that, regardless of a person’s citizenship or legal status, they have the right to utilize all legal tools and procedures available in the United States.
Depriving a person of enough time to speak to an attorney or conduct a “credible fear interview” before sending them to a potentially dangerous country is a clear violation of the protections granted by the Constitution, a document which is central to U.S. identity and at the core of its legal system.
Violating International Protections
Furthermore, deportation to countries like South Sudan puts migrants at risk of refoulement. Non-refoulement is a fundamental principle of international refugee and immigration law. It protects people fleeing persecution from being sent back to a place where they are in danger. However, the non-refoulement principle also applies to people being sent to a country other than their own.
The U.S. Department of State warns its citizens against travelling to South Sudan because it considers it a high-risk location due to “crime, kidnapping, and armed conflict.” It is the poorest country in the world. According to the U.N., it is currently facing a rise in violence and conflict-related sexual violence. Why would the country pose less of a risk to non-U.S. citizens?
When the U.S. border czar, Tom Homan, was asked what the status is of the deportees in South Sudan, he said that he “does not know.” Clearly, there is little to no policy in place to ensure the safety of the immigrants that the U.S. is outsourcing to other countries.
In another case, the U.S. government deported more than 230 Venezuelans to the infamous CECOT mega-prison in El Salvador. Trump framed this as part of a campaign to rid the U.S. of immigrant criminals. However, most of them had no criminal record. After four months, the Venezuelan government negotiated their release through a prisoner swap, and they were allowed to return to Venezuela. Now, they report that the Salvadoran guards tortured and abused them while they were incarcerated.
A three-year-long “state of emergency” in El Salvador has allowed for the suspension of human rights, mass incarceration, and torture of innocent men in the name of Nayib Bukele’s war on gangs. This is well-documented. The U.S. even helped fund the CECOT. With total awareness of the situation, the Trump administration sent these Venezuelans to be tortured, in direct violation of CAT.
Sacrificing American Identity for American Nativism
The deportation of migrants to third countries without notice is yet another tool in the U.S.’s war against immigrants. Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill, the militarization of ICE, and the Supreme Court’s complete disregard for the Constitution when it applies to immigrants show that the current government is willing to embrace hypocrisy when it suits their needs.
The U.S. likes to call itself a “nation of immigrants” and a “melting pot”. It is a country that embraces its Constitution. As Thomas Jefferson stated in the Declaration of Independence, at the country’s inception, “all men are created equal” and everyone has the right to “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”
In its struggle to fight off this perceived invasion of immigrants, the U.S. is sacrificing the very foundation on which the country’s identity is built. And once the dust settles, it remains to be seen how much of the American Dream will be left over.
Edited by Khushi Mehta
