The deal marks the latest effort by the Trump administration to limit asylum applications in the US and carry out a campaign of mass deportation.
Recommended Stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
The two countries signed the agreement on Monday, with Belize calling it an act “grounded in the commitment of states to cooperate under the 1951 UN Convention on the Status of Refugees”.
In a statement posted on Facebook, its government press office wrote, “The Agreement reinforces Belize’s commitment to international law and humanitarian principles while ensuring strong national safeguards.”
The US State Department’s Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, meanwhile, thanked Belize in a post on X.
The deal, it said, was “an important milestone in ending illegal immigration, shutting down abuse of our nation’s asylum system, and reinforcing our shared commitment to tackling challenges in our hemisphere together.”
“Safe third country” agreements are a controversial tactic used to restrict asylum applications: They identify countries asylum seekers can be safely removed to, regardless of whether that is their intended destination.
The details of Monday’s agreement are as yet unclear. But the Central American country indicated it would receive US asylum seekers in exchange for “financial and technical assistance to enhance Belize’s asylum and border management policies”.
Criticisms of third-party deportations
Since Trump returned to office for a second term in January, his administration has repeatedly lobbied third-party countries to accept deportations, though few such deals have been termed “safe third country” accords.
Nearly a dozen countries — including Costa Rica, El Salvador, Eswatini, Mexico, Panama, Rwanda, South Sudan and Uganda — have since agreed to receive US deportees with no existing ties to their nations.
Just this month, Guatemala received its first deportation flight from the US carrying third-country immigrants.
How safe some of those countries are has been a point of contention. Critics have pointed out that deportees could face abusive prison conditions or a lack of due process in countries like South Sudan, where the US State Department advises its citizens not to travel for fear of armed conflict.
Already, lawyers for five men deported to Eswatini have claimed they have been incarcerated and denied legal hearings.
“Safe third country” agreements, by contrast, are specifically for asylum seekers, and they are meant to assure the rights and wellbeing of those involved.
But critics have long argued that they fail to fully guarantee the safety of asylum seekers, some of whom are removed to countries near the ones they fled, where they could still be vulnerable to persecution.
Some human rights experts also believe “safe third country” agreements could be used to erode adherence to international humanitarian law, allowing wealthy countries like the US to shirk their legal responsibilities to asylum seekers.
In Monday’s statement, Belize sought to dispel any accusation that the Trump administration might be using the Central American nation as a “dumping ground” for migrants, as advocates in other third-party countries have alleged.
Belize claimed it retained “an absolute veto over transfers, with restrictions on nationalities, a cap on transferees, and comprehensive security screenings”.
“No person who is deemed to be a threat to the public safety or national security will be allowed to enter or stay in Belize,” it added.
The deal still needs approval from the Belize Senate.
A growing trend
For its part, the Trump administration has argued that deals with third-party countries are necessary in cases where migrants and asylum seekers are unable to return to their home countries.
In the case of asylum seekers, however, it would be a violation of US and international law to return them to countries where they might face persecution.
Still, in other cases, the US has argued that the deportees’ home countries have refused to accept them.
But recent events have cast doubt on that rationale. In September, for instance, one man deported from the US to Eswatini was sent back to his home country of Jamaica.
This month’s deportation flight to Guatemala also saw Honduran passengers returned to their home country.
Some countries, however, do have policies refusing to accept deportations from the US, even if those transfers involve their own citizens.
Venezuela, for instance, has intermittently refused deportation flights from the US, though in March it reversed course and began accepting them.
The South American had protested the deportation of its citizens from the US to El Salvador, where more than 200 people were sent to a maximum-security prison known as the Terrorism Confinement Centre (CECOT) that month.
In July, the Trump administration struck a deal that allowed the Venezuelans imprisoned in El Salvador to be returned to their home country, in exchange for the release of US citizens and political prisoners held in Venezuela.
But Venezuela-US relations have since soured once more, leaving the future of deportation flights to Caracas unclear.
As Belize faces the prospect of accepting asylum seekers who are unable to return to their home country, some politicians have already voiced strong opposition.
Tracy Taegar Panton, an opposition leader in Belize, questioned whether her country should even qualify as a “safe third country”.
“To be designated a ‘Safe Third Country,’ Belize must demonstrate that it can guarantee human rights protections and provide a high standard of care including access to housing, healthcare, legal representation, and social services for asylum seekers,” she wrote on social media.
“The reality, however, is stark. Our immigration and asylum systems are understaffed, underfunded, and overwhelmed.”
She added that the agreement was beyond the country’s capacity to fulfil.
“Belize cannot and must not be used as a dumping ground for individuals other countries refuse to accept,” she said.
Leave a Reply