Around fifteen migrants deported from the United States landed in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo, on Friday, April 17, as part of a bilateral agreement between the administrations of Donald Trump and Congolese President Félix Tshisekedi. These individuals, originally from Latin America, mark the first concrete implementation of this system.
According to a source close to the Congolese presidency, the group consists of seven women and eight men from Peru and Ecuador. Their arrival is part of a program presented by Kinshasa as a "temporary reception mechanism for third-country nationals" linked to US immigration policies.
This agreement, signed in early April, is part of broader cooperation between the two countries, particularly in the health and mining sectors. At the end of February, Washington and Kinshasa had already concluded a $1,2 billion partnership in the health sector. However, the exact terms of the migration agreement remain unclear, especially regarding any potential concessions granted to the DRC.
Once there, the migrants would be temporarily housed, possibly in a hotel in Kinshasa, with the support of the International Organization for Migration, which could offer them assistance with "voluntary return." This situation has been denounced by some NGOs and lawyers, who are concerned about respect for the rights of those involved, especially since several are believed to be under legal protection against being sent back to their countries of origin.
The Congolese government insists on the temporary nature of the program and affirms that each case will be examined individually. Authorities also specify that the United States is covering the logistical costs. According to sources close to the matter, approximately fifty migrants could be sent to the DRC each month, although no overall total has been disclosed.
These transfers are part of a broader strategy by the US administration to outsource deportations to third countries, particularly in Africa. This policy, already implemented with several states on the continent, has drawn sharp criticism from human rights organizations, which denounce the agreements as opaque and potentially contrary to international law.
Community
Comments
Comments are open, but protected against spam. Initial posts and comments containing links undergo manual review.
Be the first to comment on this article.