When former American President Barack Obama said in a speech in the Parliament of Ghana that democracy is not just what happens at elections, but rather what happens between elections, many people around the world began paying attention to what was happening in politics in developing countries in Africa and the Caribbean. Today, we see plainly that Obama’s words are more appropriate and applicable to the political system and the governance in the United States of America.
Sadly, the deterioration of the justice system in the U.S. is affecting and disturbing to people in most developing countries of the world. Now most things taken for granted with respect to travel or immigration matters in that country are patently undemocratic, unconstitutional and an infringement of the fundamental rights and freedom of individuals whether they are citizens or not.
We never imagined before this second term of the Trump administration that anyone would be asked to have their cellphone or social media account examined by American authorities in order to obtain a Visa for entry into the U.S. While each nation has the right to set laws, policies and regulations governing immigration, the country built by immigrants and which once claimed to be “the land of the free and home of the brave” should now seriously consider whether the inscription on the statue of liberty still applies. It states: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”
It must have been shocking to many jurists in Commonwealth countries on Monday past when the U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for the Trump administration to deport immigrants to countries where they are not citizens, temporarily blocking a decision by a lower court judge who said migrants must have a “meaningful opportunity” to contest their removal.
This is clearly a disregard for the rule of law.
The court’s order, which drew a sharp dissent from the three liberal justices, was the latest of several allowing President Donald Trump to move forward with a major change in policy while litigation on the issue continues in lower courts. Each has been made as part of the court’s “emergency docket,” which means they are decided based on truncated court filings, not oral argument, and the justices do not always explain their reasoning.
As part of Trump’s mass deportation efforts, the administration has attempted to send groups of migrants, some convicted of crimes in the United States, to countries other than their own, including to conflict-ridden South Sudan. Four individuals initially filed a lawsuit in Boston on behalf of all migrants potentially subject to third-country removals, saying they are entitled to notice and an opportunity to raise fear-based claims before deportation.
U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy in Massachusetts ruled against the administration, temporarily barring such deportations. He later said a planned deportation flight to South Sudan had violated his order. Those migrants have since been held in a makeshift detention facility at a U.S. naval base in Djibouti, enduring health hazards and the threat of rocket attacks.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, wrote a nearly 20-page dissent, criticizing the administration for violating the lower court order and trying to send migrants to “a nation the State Department considers too unsafe for all but its most critical personnel.”
The conservative majority’s one paragraph, unsigned statement did not explain its reasons for pausing Murphy’s decision.
The third-country removals case is one of several testing the administration’s aggressive efforts to ramp up deportations and restrict legal and illegal immigration. The administration has been restrained by the Supreme Court in other cases when the justices joined lower court judges in chastising Trump officials for failing to provide immigrants with sufficient time or due process to challenge their removals.
