By Sylvia Perry
In the past week, a string of Caribbean governments announced or advanced talks with Washington to accept U.S. deportees who have not committed violent crimes — including people whose stays in the United States exceeded their visas and those denied asylum — raising alarm among critics who say the region is being used as a “dumping ground” for America’s immigration enforcement.
Guyana, Grenada, Dominica, Antigua and Barbuda, St. Kitts and Nevis and St. Lucia have either signed memorandums of understanding with the U.S. or confirmed ongoing negotiations on agreements that could see “third-country nationals” transferred from the United States to their territories.
Under these arrangements, which are generally non-binding, governments stress that any acceptance would be on a case-by-case basis with strict criteria, including excluding those with violent criminal backgrounds and providing consent before any transfer. Antigua and Barbuda’s government explicitly states that no deportees can be sent without its approval, and similar language appears in the agreements with St. Lucia.
Public reactions across the Caribbean have been mixed — with concern outweighing enthusiasm.
In Dominica, opposition politicians criticized their government for unveiling the deal suddenly, saying citizens deserve more transparency about how many people might arrive, who they would be, and how the government plans to care for them. “We have questions about our capacity or capability to welcome and take care of the intended group of persons,” said Thomson Fontaine, leader of the main opposition United Workers Party.
Some civic groups and citizens express angst that small island states — often with limited health, housing and economic infrastructure — could be saddled with responsibilities without clear safeguards. Others view the deals with skepticism, wondering why Caribbean nations, many already economically stressed, are being asked to absorb burdens that wealthier countries, including in Europe, are not.
“Why is this region being targeted?” asked one community advocate in St. Kitts, pointing out that Caribbean nations are predominantly home to people of color and have long grappled with economic inequality and limited resources. Human rights and immigration advocates argue that wealthier nations with stronger economies and extensive social systems, including European countries, should share more responsibility for resettlement rather than relying on small island states. (Historical deportation trends also show critics accusing the Caribbean of being chosen in part because of longstanding geopolitical and economic ties with the United States.)
In May of last year, several Caribbean heads of state met at the State Department (L-R) Prime Minister Terrance Drew of Saint Kitts and Nevis, Prime Minister Philip Davis of The Bahamas, Prime Minister Gaston Browne of Antigua and Barbuda, Prime Minister Ralph Gonsalves of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Prime Minister Roosevelt Skerrit of Dominica, Prime Minister Philip J. Pierre of Saint Lucia, and Prime Minister Dickon Mitchell of Grenada.
Yet supporters of the Caribbean agreements — including some government officials — portray them as opportunities to strengthen bilateral ties with the United States and possibly attract economic incentives or technical support. Several governments have underscored that agreements remain conditional and that no transfers have yet taken place.
These Caribbean discussions form part of a broader expansion of U.S. deportation arrangements. Panama and several Central American countries have already agreed to host U.S. deportees when the United States cannot send individuals directly to their home states. Panama, for example, has held nearly 300 deportees in a temporary facility while arrangements were made for their return or processing, with the U.S. government covering costs.
Beyond the Americas, African nations such as Eswatini, Rwanda and South Sudan have struck similar deals, agreeing to accept deportees from the U.S., though those arrangements have drawn heavy criticism from human rights organizations over conditions and legal protections for the individuals involved.
Compensation and benefits for host countries vary widely in these arrangements. In Central America, U.S. authorities have assumed the financial costs of relocation, while other agreements offer technical cooperation on immigration enforcement and border management in exchange for participation.
Is it just a coincidence that most of the dumping grounds are in countries of color?
European nations have largely rejected or avoided agreements to accept U.S. deportees from other countries, in part because of stronger domestic immigration laws, robust asylum systems and, in some cases, public resistance to being perceived as accomplices in U.S. deportation strategy. Europe’s shared legal frameworks for asylum — including the 1951 Refugee Convention — also make broad third-party deportation agreements more legally and politically complex.
By contrast, Caribbean states have often pursued strategic cooperation with the United States on security and economic development under longstanding frameworks such as the Partnership for Prosperity and Security in the Caribbean, which aims to deepen economic and security ties. Critics contend that these longstanding relationships may tilt negotiations in Washington’s favor.
For now, the proposed arrangements remain frameworks for dialogue rather than executed programs, and no large-scale transfers have yet begun. But the debate in Caribbean capitals — between sovereignty and security, national interest and international pressure — is just beginning.
Whether these agreements evolve into regular deportation flights, and what impact that might have on the economies, communities and international standing of small Caribbean nations, will be closely watched by policymakers, human rights advocates, and affected populations on both sides of the Atlantic.