A “safe third country” immigration agreement between the United States and Belize will allow the administration of President Donald Trump to transfer asylum seekers there.
The Trump administration’s most recent effort is to restrict asylum applications in the US and carry out a nationwide deportation campaign.
Recommended Stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
The two nations signed the agreement on Monday, with Belize calling it an “act that was inspired by the commitment of states to cooperate under the UN Convention on the Status of Refugees” from the beginning.
The Agreement strengthens Belize’s commitment to international law and humanitarian principles while providing strong national safeguards, the government press office stated in a statement posted on Facebook.
Meanwhile, in a post on X, the US State Department’s Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs thanked Belize.
According to the statement, the agreement “always represents a significant milestone in putting an end to illegal immigration, ending abuse of our country’s asylum system, and strengthening our shared commitment to tackling issues in our hemisphere together.”
As a controversial tactic, “Safe Third Country” agreements identify nations where asylum seekers can be safely transported to, regardless of their intended destination.
The agreement’s details from Monday are still undetermined. However, Belize requested financial and technical assistance to improve its asylum and border management policies in exchange for US asylum seekers.
Third-party deportation criticisms
Although few “safe third country” agreements have been called such since Trump’s second term in office in January, his administration has repeatedly lobbied for deportations.
Nearly a dozen nations have since agreed to take American deportees without any prior ties to their respective countries, including Costa Rica, El Salvador, Eswatini, Mexico, Panama, Rwanda, South Sudan, and Uganda.
Guatemala just recently received its first deportation flight from the US carrying immigrants from third countries.
Some of those nations’ safety has been a source of contention. In nations like South Sudan, where the US State Department advises its citizens against traveling for fear of armed conflict, critics have criticized deportees for their pervasive imprisonment and lack of due process.
Five men deported to Eswatini have already been sued for their legal rights, with some denying them legal proceedings.
By contrast, “Safe Third Country” agreements are designed to protect the rights and well-being of the parties involved. They are designed to do so.
However, critics have long argued that they do not fully guarantee asylum seekers’ safety, some of whom are relocated to countries close to where they may still face persecution.
Some human rights experts also believe “safe third country” agreements could be used to erode adherence to international humanitarian law, allowing wealthy countries like the US to shirk their legal responsibilities to asylum seekers.
In Monday’s statement, Belize sought to dispel any accusation that the Trump administration might be using the Central American nation as a “dumping ground” for migrants, as advocates in other third-party countries have alleged.
Belize claimed it retained “an absolute veto over transfers, with restrictions on nationalities, a cap on transferees, and comprehensive security screenings”.
“No person who is deemed to be a threat to the public safety or national security will be allowed to enter or stay in Belize”, it added.
The deal still needs approval from the Belize Senate.
A growing trend
For its part, the Trump administration has argued that deals with third-party countries are necessary in cases where migrants and asylum seekers are unable to return to their home countries.
In the case of asylum seekers, however, it would be a violation of US and international law to return them to countries where they might face persecution.
Still, in other cases, the US has argued that the deportees ‘ home countries have refused to accept them.
But recent events have cast doubt on that rationale. In September, for instance, one man deported from the US to Eswatini was sent back to his home country of Jamaica.
This month’s deportation flight to Guatemala also saw Honduran passengers returned to their home country.
Some countries, however, do have policies refusing to accept deportations from the US, even if those transfers involve their own citizens.
Venezuela, for instance, has intermittently refused deportation flights from the US, though in March it reversed course and began accepting them.
The South American had protested the deportation of its citizens from the US to El Salvador, where more than 200 people were sent to a maximum-security prison known as the Terrorism Confinement Centre (CECOT) that month.
In July, the Trump administration struck a deal that allowed the Venezuelans imprisoned in El Salvador to be returned to their home country, in exchange for the release of US citizens and political prisoners held in Venezuela.
But Venezuela-US relations have since soured once more, leaving the future of deportation flights to Caracas unclear.
As Belize faces the prospect of accepting asylum seekers who are unable to return to their home country, some politicians have already voiced strong opposition.
Tracy Taegar Panton, an opposition leader in Belize, questioned whether her country should even qualify as a “safe third country”.
“To be designated a ‘ Safe Third Country, ‘ Belize must demonstrate that it can guarantee human rights protections and provide a high standard of care including access to housing, healthcare, legal representation, and social services for asylum seekers”, she wrote on social media.
However, “the reality is stark. Our immigration and asylum systems are overburdened, understaffed, and understaffed.
She added that the nation was unable to fulfill the agreement.
