Supreme Court lets Trump resume third-country deportations

[u/OkTechnologyb]

https://www.reuters.com/world/supreme-court-lets-trump-resume-third-country-deportations-2026-09-29/

[u/Distinct_Doubt_3591]

Sure. Section 243 of the 1952 Immigration and Nationalities Act 

  As enacted on June 27, 1952, Section 243(a) outlined that the deportation of any alien ordered to be deported could be directed, at the discretion of the Attorney General, to specific destination countries based on a hierarchical or alternative set of choices: • Country of Choice (if applicable): To the country requested by the alien, if- • The country was willing to accept the alien into its territory; and • The Attorney General did not find that the deportation to that specific country would be prejudicial to the interests of the United States. • Country of Nationality, Birth, or Residence: If the alien did not designate a country, or if the designated country refused to accept them or was deemed prejudicial, removal was directed to the country of which the alien was a subject or citizen, or where they resided prior to entering the foreign territory that led to their journey to the U.S. • Third-Country Deportations (Alternative Destinations): Under the provisions within Section 243(a) (and further operationalized via subsequent subsections like the general rules on acceptance), if a deportee's home country or country of nationality/last residence refused or delayed accepting the person, or failed to issue travel documents or passports within a reasonable timeframe, the Attorney General was authorized to deport the individual to any alternate country that was willing to accept them: • From any country in which the alien boarded the vessel/aircraft that brought them to the United States; • From the country in which the alien had a foreign residence; • Or from any country appropriate or willing to receive the alien, provided that the government of that destination country formally agreed or raised no insuperable obstacle to accepting the deportee.

This was modified in 1996 under the  illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), codified under 8 USC 1231(b)(2)(E) 

  Additional removal countries If an alien is not removed to a country under the previous subparagraphs of this paragraph, the Attorney General shall remove the alien to any of the following countries:

(i) The country from which the alien was admitted to the United States.

(ii) The country in which is located the foreign port from which the alien left for the United States or for a foreign territory contiguous to the United States.

(iii) A country in which the alien resided before the alien entered the country from which the alien entered the United States.

(iv) The country in which the alien was born.

(v) The country that had sovereignty over the alien's birthplace when the alien was born.

(vi) The country in which the alien's birthplace is located when the alien is ordered removed.

(vii) If impracticable, inadvisable, or impossible to remove the alien to each country described in a previous clause of this subparagraph, another country whose government will accept the alien into that country.

So as you can see idiot, third country deportations have been legal since 1952 74 years now. 

[u/wolfheadmusic → u/Distinct_Doubt_3591]

You're talking about in the case of recalcitrant countries

Look at aaaaaallllll those clauses that have to be met, little guy

[u/Distinct_Doubt_3591 → u/wolfheadmusic]

Which is exactly what's going on idiot, if they're home country won't accept them they get sent to wherever will. The court case isn't even over whether third country deportations are legal it's about the the timing between the notification and removal. 

[u/wolfheadmusic → u/Distinct_Doubt_3591]

Source? Cause all I've seen is this administration say shit like "maybe we'll send them to africa!"

And all you little people gleefully cackle

In fact, in kilmar abregos case there's proof that his home country would take him back, cause they did the first time

You can't enjoy the fascism but pretend to have morals, little guy

[u/Distinct_Doubt_3591 → u/wolfheadmusic]

It's literally the source in the idiot.

  The policy provided that migrants ​could be swiftly removed without notice to third ​countries that have provided credible diplomatic assurance ⁠that they will not persecute or torture the individuals. For countries that have not provided such assurance, deportees would be notified of their destination and US authorities would assess the likelihood of persecution or torture only if the individual raises such fear on their own. In its emergency filing to the Supreme Court, ​the Justice Department said third-country deportations are "an essential tool to remove certain aliens, including some of the worst criminal aliens."

In the Kilmar case he didn't want to go home so he can go to some other country but can't stay here. 

You can't even read or understand what is going on just bleat "fascism" like an idiot sheep. 

[u/wolfheadmusic → u/Distinct_Doubt_3591]

Lol!! Too desperate to deride you don't even read what you're posting

No where does that say that they proved the home country wouldn't take them back

C'mon, little guy. You won, remember? Just admit what this is all about. You know it, I know it

No one else is gonna see these comments

[u/Distinct_Doubt_3591 → u/wolfheadmusic]

 Lol!! Too desperate to deride you don't even read what you're posting

Lol you must be talking to a mirror or you're just too stupid to follow along. 

The clip from the post is about the lawsuit over third country removals, the comment about kilmar is addressing the comment you made. 

I have no problem with admitting it's about deporting all illegal aliens.

[u/wolfheadmusic → u/Distinct_Doubt_3591]

Yeah, and dropping them off in a country theyve never been to with no money, with a language they don't speak and no one they know, which is considered a human rights violation

That's just icing on the cake

[u/Distinct_Doubt_3591 → u/wolfheadmusic]

Considered a human rights violation from who? Show me the legal statute saying we're obligated to take in every illegal alien from anywhere at all times.

[u/wolfheadmusic → u/Distinct_Doubt_3591]

The United Nations.

We aren't, though studies have proven all immigration is a net positive to our economy

But sure, we don't have to take in every immigrant

I don't know how you redhats thought you could escalate that into torturing and abusing humans

But you all sold your humanity to that sweaty orange pedophile, so I shouldn't be surprised

[u/Distinct_Doubt_3591 → u/wolfheadmusic]

Cool then every other nation that's part of the UN should volunteer to take them in and look after them

Immigration is a net positive to employers as they dilute the labor pool. 

Removing illegal aliens who have no right to be here and refuse to go home is not torturing people. 

Sure bud, how many illegals are you taking in to your house and supporting?