.jpeg)
When 104 illegal immigrants were deported back to India by the Trump administration, with the men shackled hand and foot, millions of Indians were deeply upset. Many felt that such treatment of illegal immigrants was unwarranted and reflected the administration’s insensitivity, with some even calling it cruel. In India, where citizens enjoy significant personal freedom, the outrage among Indians is hardly surprising.
When this issue was debated in the Indian Parliament, the Foreign Minister took what appeared to be a neutral stance, stating that this practice in the U.S. is part of their standard operating procedure. He did not condemn the U.S. action. Instead, he softened the blow by noting that women and children among the deportees were not restrained. He also mentioned that the deportees were provided with food, medical assistance, and access to toilet facilities during transit.
The Minister assured that the Government of India would raise the issue with the Trump administration, requesting that deportees not be treated so harshly in the future.
Clearly, the Foreign Minister, cautious in his reaction, sought to avoid creating friction in Indo-U.S. relations, especially given that the illegal migrants had violated U.S. laws and were deemed lawbreakers in the U.S.
Reactions to the Foreign Minister’s statement in India were mixed. Some believed the Indian government should take a holistic view of the matter and avoid overreacting, particularly at a time when the Trump administration is still finding its footing.
What Do Critics Say?
The U.S. claims to be a democratic and free country that respects human values and individual dignity. Critics argue that the treatment of deportees, particularly the use of handcuffs, contradicts these claims.
When a person is arrested following a First Information Report (FIR), they cannot be deemed a criminal until proven guilty in a court of law. However, the Trump administration did not give the illegal immigrants an opportunity to challenge their deportation in court. In a democratic society, it is not uncommon for a person convicted in a lower court to be acquitted by a higher court.
Arresting illegal immigrants and detaining them is different from deporting individuals who have lived in the country for years, many of whom possess social security cards. This complex issue requires judicial scrutiny, but there is no indication that the Trump administration subjected its decision to judicial review.
It is worth noting that most illegal immigrants in the U.S. have lived and worked there for years, contributing to the U.S. economy in various ways. In other words, the U.S. has benefited from their labor.
Finally, the Trump administration must answer one critical question: For years, the U.S. has loudly criticized human rights violations in other countries, particularly developing nations like India and Sri Lanka, positioning itself as the global champion of human rights. Yet, the administration’s decision to handcuff deportees and expel them mercilessly exposes the hollowness of these claims.
Is the Trump Administration Inhumane?
The Trump administration is within its rights to deport illegal immigrants if it believes their presence is against U.S. interests. However, the method of handcuffing and deporting them to India is undeniably harsh. That said, this practice does not necessarily mean the administration is inhumane. It is possible that security concerns influenced this decision.
Deportees are likely to be unhappy, frustrated, and angry. There is a risk that some might act violently during the flight, posing a safety hazard. Notably, the Trump administration did not handcuff women and children, possibly assuming that women would not resort to violence.
Why the Rush to the U.S.?
In countries like India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and Pakistan, many aspire to migrate to the U.S., drawn by its prosperity. Some argue that this desire stems from a lingering colonial mindset, as these nations were ruled by European powers for centuries.
India faces its own challenges with illegal migrants from Bangladesh and Myanmar. However, India lacks the boldness to deport them, as their home countries might disown them and refuse to accept them. Unlike the U.S., India cannot impose tariffs or use similar leverage to force these countries to take back their citizens.
Conclusion:
The Trump administration is redefining migration policies and setting a precedent for how nations handle migrant issues. Its actions will likely make people from India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and other countries think twice before attempting to enter the U.S. illegally.
---
*Trustee, Nandini Voice For The Deprived, Chennai
Comments