Deported to Nowhere: The Trump Administration’s Dangerous Game with Human Lives

By. Marina Caraballo

DOI. 10.57912/30273196

---

“Help us.” “We are not (safe) in our country.” These desperate calls from migrants and asylum seekers detained at the luxury Decápolis Hotel in Panama City reflect the dangerous consequences of recent U.S. immigration policies. The Trump Administration signed an executive order that suspended the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP), a longstanding federal policy that resettled individuals fleeing war, persecution, or political violence. Hundreds of individuals originally from countries like China, Iran, and Afghanistan—countries with no regional ties to Central America—have been deported to Panama and Costa Rica. Many of these individuals have been confined to their hotel rooms, where officials have confiscated their phones, limiting their access to legal representation and leaving them with no clear path forward. 

The White House justified this decision by citing that additional refugee arrivals could be “detrimental to the interests of the United States.” Abolishing USRAP is not just inhumane, it undermines America’s long-standing commitment to refugee protection and sends a troubling message to the international community. To prevent further harm caused by the suspension of the USRAP, it is imperative that the U.S. government reinstate the program and restore funding to organizations that support refugee resettlement, ensuring safer migration pathways for refugees, and preventing other countries from adopting similar restrictive policies. 

Out of the 299 migrants housed at the hotel, 171 have agreed to return to their home countries. Those who refused to return to their home countries, fearing for their safety or lacking documentation, have been transferred to the San Vicente Migrant Reception Station, a remote camp near the Darién Jungle in Panama. The Darién Gap is notoriously known as the most dangerous migration route on the globe due to its treacherous terrain, wildlife hazards, health risks, and rampant criminal activity. Conditions at this jungle camp were striking. Migrants slept on cots or hard benches in metal buildings with no air conditioning, enduring intense heat and humidity, with little privacy, even in bathrooms and showers. Food was scarce, and there were few activities for children, who missed out on their education. Detainees were shackled and denied communication with lawyers and family members. The psychological toll on children, many of whom are already fleeing trauma, is severe. Without proper schooling, emotional support, or safe spaces, young asylum seekers risk long-term developmental harm. The conditions in these remote camps violate international agreements like the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which protects minors' right to education, health, and safe shelter regardless of legal status.

These deportations and detentions also violated both U.S. and international refugee law. Many migrants were deported without an opportunity to present their claims in an asylum hearing, ignoring the Refugee Act of 1980. By circumventing these case-by-case evaluations, the U.S. overstepped its domestic due process rights. This approach also violates international law, most notably, the principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits a country from returning a person to a country where they would face serious threats to their life. By deporting individuals to Panama, where they face confinement in remote camps and lack legal access, the U.S. bypasses this obligation. Panama’s inability to guarantee safety or execute fair asylum processes further exposes deportees to the risk of persecution and human rights abuses. Human Rights organizations have condemned these actions as unlawful and inhumane, warning that they set a dangerous precedent for other nations to ignore the global asylum system. Since March, other countries like the United Kingdom and Australia have fallen in line with this U.S. policy by sending asylum seekers to Rwanda and Nauru. This growing willingness among nations to send migrants to “bridge” countries is an alarming trend. As countries continue to erode trust by disregarding longstanding international law, it makes collective solutions that require international cooperation harder to achieve.

In March, Panama announced that it would allow 112 migrants deported from the U.S. who had been held in a remote camp in the Darién region to move freely around the country until they decide their next course of action. Although the government claimed humanitarian motives for the decision, human rights lawyers quickly raised concerns that it might serve as a tactic to protect authorities from international criticism over their treatment of migrants. Simultaneously, it exposes those migrants to greater risks as they do not know people nor have the language expertise to navigate themselves within or out of the country. 

Panama’s willingness to act as a “bridge” country—likely influenced by diplomatic pressure—has raised questions about the fairness of placing such responsibility on smaller nations with limited capacity. Without U.S. support or infrastructure investment, this system simply shifts the burden, making it harder for migrants to access legal aid or secure resettlement.

Despite restricted aid, the U.S. has a moral responsibility to address the human rights violations caused by its recent immigration policies, especially given its historic role as a global leader in refugee protection. To begin repairing this damage, the U.S. must immediately reinstate the USRAP. This would restore full access to asylum hearings and ensure that vulnerable populations are no longer stranded. Realistically, given the political views of the Administration, reinstating USRAP could only be successful with stricter vetting protocols. Some ways to do this would be by expanding background checks through biometric screening and requiring asylum seekers and refugees to disclose social media handles to confirm identity and check for security risks. However, any expanded vetting must include strong oversight to prevent surveillance overreach and ensure that refugees are not disqualified arbitrarily. Social media checks, biometric screening, and multi-agency background verifications could all form part of a reformed but humane vetting system. It is imperative to the success of this new protocol that the U.S. prioritizes safeguarding national security without violating privacy or preexisting due process.

Furthermore, regional processing centers could be established to prioritize refugees from areas with little diplomatic ties with the U.S., like Afghanistan, Iran, and China. This is feasible because regional processing centers do not require the U.S. to directly negotiate with hostile governments, like those of Afghanistan, Iran, and China, to process refugees. These centers, if established in cooperation with the UN and host countries like Panama or Costa Rica, could serve as screening hubs that meet humanitarian standards. Similar models have been used in the Balkans to process refugee claims closer to conflict zones, reducing the need for perilous journeys while keeping U.S. authorities engaged early in the asylum process. To further address the humanitarian concerns on the ground, especially the remote camps in the Darién, the U.S. could partner with Latin American governments to establish UN-supervised processing centers in Panama. This would ensure that these asylum seekers are not exposed to further violence and exploitation. 

Lastly, unfreezing grants to refugee integration programs and non-profits in the U.S. is essential to ensuring that once these asylum seekers arrive, they have the support that they need to rebuild their lives. These organizations provide critical services such as legal aid, housing, and language instruction—resources that are vital to helping people live successfully in American society. 

Until the U.S. acknowledges its role in creating this humanitarian crisis and takes concrete steps to reverse these harmful policies, it will continue to erode its credibility as a leader of human rights. The road to redemption is clear: reinstate USRAP, fund support networks at home and abroad, and build partnerships that respect both sovereignty and human dignity. Only then can the U.S. begin to reclaim its role as a place of refuge—and not a force of displacement.