The deportation of over 100 Indian illegal immigrants by the U.S. has triggered protests in Indian Parliament. External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar reassured that India is in talks with U.S. authorities to ensure the safety and humane treatment of deportees. The use of restraints during deportations has raised more concerns amid Trump’s stringent immigration policies, drawing comparisons to other nations’ approaches to deportation.
Recently, images of over 100 Indian illegal immigrants deported from the U.S. in handcuffs and leg restraints spurred outrage in the Indian Parliament. Union External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar assured that India is working with the U.S. to safeguard the interests of these deportees, noting that the execution of deportations falls under the jurisdiction of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
Jaishankar outlined that the U.S. deportation process has had a standing Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) since 2012, which includes the use of restraints during deportations. The situation has drawn heightened scrutiny now, particularly due to President Trump’s administration, which has aggressively pursued illegal immigration enforcement since he took office.
EAM Jaishankar presented the statistics on Indian deportations from the U.S. since 2009, revealing a total of 15,700 Indians have faced deportation. The practice of restraining deportees was initiated in 2012. Numbers escalated during Trump’s presidency, hitting a peak of 2,042 deportees in 2019.
The opposition criticized the U.S. for its treatment of immigrants, pointing out that other nations, like Colombia, have taken steps to ensure dignified deportations for their citizens. Congress leader Shashi Tharoor emphasized the need for a more respectful approach, suggesting that commercial flights should be used instead of military aircraft.
As India prepares for Prime Minister Modi’s upcoming visit to the U.S., opposition leaders have demanded transparency from the government regarding deportations. Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge called for a thorough explanation of why India didn’t send a plane to bring back its citizens under more respectful conditions.
ICE detains unauthorized immigrants at facilities across the U.S. after arrests, leading to deportation processes which can vary significantly based on an immigrant’s timing of entry into the country. Trump’s administration has now included military aircraft in deportation practices, with a C-17 Globemaster recently transporting Indian deportees.
Deportations are not a new phenomenon, but the current controversy is largely attributed to the Trump administration’s tactics and the perceived inadequacy of the Modi government’s response. While the UN supports the right to leave one’s own country, it doesn’t guarantee the right to enter another, framing the larger discussion around immigration rights.
In summary, the incident highlights the complex interplay between immigration policy, international relations, and the treatment of deportees, drawing criticism from opposition parties and raising questions about diplomatic solutions.
The article discusses the implications and reactions regarding the deportation of Indian illegal immigrants under President Trump’s administration. It includes perspectives from Indian officials, opposition leaders, and highlights the operational policies of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) regarding deportations. The context is set against ongoing diplomatic relations between India and the U.S., especially in light of Prime Minister Modi’s upcoming visit.
The deportation of Indian immigrants under handcuffs by the U.S. has elicited significant backlash in India, raising questions about the treatment of deportees and the Indian government’s diplomatic response. The heightened focus on this issue reflects broader concerns about immigration policy under the Trump administration and its impact on international relations. Advocates for immigrant rights continue to highlight a need for humane treatment in deportation processes, while the debate over legal obligations and country-specific responses remains contentious.
Original Source: www.livemint.com
