US routes deportees to foreign jails to evade courts

The White House found a shadow route around immigration courts: cash.

On September 28, 2026, The Daily detailed how the federal government paid foreign nations millions of dollars to take non-citizens who completed US prison sentences. When home countries refuse repatriation, federal law standardly requires releasing individuals under supervision inside the United States. To bypass that mandate, officials structured cash deals with roughly 35 foreign governments. Official records reveal Eswatini received $5.1 million to imprison detainees, while El Salvador accepted $6 million.

New York Times reporter Nicholas Casey reported on The Daily that roughly 5,000 deportees ended up in foreign cells, hotels, or active conflict zones. In Eswatini, an absolute monarchy with no legal protections for free speech, guards stripped detainees upon arrival. Local authorities assigned them numbers and held them indefinitely without filing local criminal charges. Casey compared the setup to offshore sites like Guantanamo Bay that operate outside US court jurisdiction.

The human toll lands heavily on long-time US residents. Cuban native Roberto Mosquera arrived in the United States at age 12, built a career as a plumber, and raised a family. After serving a prison sentence in the 1990s, he maintained routine check-ins with immigration authorities for decades. Agents arrested Mosquera at a routine appointment and flew him directly to Eswatini.

Mosquera spent 13 months inside an Eswatini prison cell without access to a local lawyer. He staged a 30-day hunger strike simply to gain permission to purchase a phone to call home. His experience demonstrates how foreign transfers strip away basic legal recourse before courts can intervene.

"Legal injunctions mean little once the plane lands overseas."

- Nicholas Casey, The Daily

Federal judges quickly stepped in to halt third-country deportations. They ruled that the policy violates constitutional due process rights. Under US immigration law, individuals cannot be sent to countries where they face high risks of torture or arbitrary imprisonment. The administration filed an emergency appeal to ask the Supreme Court to lift the stay while litigation continues.

The high court previously allowed similar executive immigration orders to take effect through emergency stays without issuing full written opinions. That historical deference gives the administration leverage, even as lower courts reject the legal grounds of third-party incarcerations.

For detainees already overseas, judicial rulings come too late. The legal fight now rests with the Supreme Court, but the physical infrastructure of offshore deportation remains active.