Is U.S. Money Shaping Panama’s Controversial Deportation Policies?

U.S. taxpayers are now footing the bill for Panama’s deportation flights, raising questions about the ethics and economics of international immigration policies.

At a Glance

The U.S. and Panama entered an agreement on July 1, 2024, for the U.S. to fund deportations from Panama
This marks the first instance of the U.S. directly paying for another country’s removal flights
The program aims to reduce migrant smuggling through the dangerous Darien Gap
Concerns arise about the potential return of individuals with valid protection claims to dangerous situations
The move reflects broader challenges in managing global migration and asylum processes

U.S.-Panama Agreement: A New Approach to Migration Control

On July 1, 2024, the United States Department of Homeland Security and Panama entered into a unprecedented diplomatic arrangement. Under this agreement, U.S. taxpayer money will fund deportation flights from Panama, marking the first time the U.S. has directly financed another country’s removal operations. The deal, signed during Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas’ visit to Panama, aims to address the surge of migrants traversing the perilous Darien Gap en route to the United States.

The agreement provides Panama with financial and logistical support for repatriating foreign nationals. This includes funding for flights, equipment, and transportation, as well as training for Panamanian personnel to determine which migrants can be removed under Panama’s immigration laws. The initiative primarily targets Ecuadorian and Colombian nationals, who, along with Venezuelans, Chinese, and Haitians, make up 90% of those crossing the Darien Gap.

Panama deported 29 Colombians on Tuesday on a flight that the government said was the first paid for by the United States under an agreement the two countries signed in July.https://t.co/52YgU6BdRa

— ABC7 Eyewitness News (@ABC7) August 21, 2024

Ethical Concerns and Potential Risks

While the Biden administration claims the program will include safeguards to comply with international law, concerns have been raised about the potential forced return of individuals with valid protection claims to dangerous situations. Colombia continues to experience internal displacement and violence, particularly affecting Indigenous and Afro-Colombian populations. Meanwhile, Ecuador recently declared an “internal armed conflict” and currently has the highest homicide rate in Central or South America.

“Irregular migration is a regional challenge that requires a regional response,” Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas stated.

Critics argue that Panama’s capacity to screen for protection claims is limited. The country’s asylum agency, ONPAR, lacks resources and staff, with only a minimal presence in the Darien Province. Additionally, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has limited capacity to support Panama in complying with non-refoulement obligations, which prohibit the return of individuals to countries where they may face persecution or danger.

Economic Implications and Broader Context

The decision to use U.S. taxpayer money to fund deportations from another country raises questions about the economic implications of such policies. While the exact cost of the program has not been disclosed, it represents a significant shift in how the U.S. approaches immigration control beyond its borders. This move comes amid a global displacement crisis that has overwhelmed existing asylum systems, with over 1.3 million pending asylum applications in the U.S. alone.

“For generations, the United States has been a place of safe haven for people seeking freedom and safety.” American Immigration Council

The U.S.-Panama agreement is part of a broader strategy to manage migration flows before they reach the U.S. southern border. However, critics argue that this approach may not address the root causes of migration and could potentially violate international obligations to protect asylum seekers. The Biden administration is being urged to reconsider this funding decision and instead expand lawful pathways for asylum, particularly for Ecuadorians and Colombians.

Looking Ahead: Balancing Security and Humanitarian Obligations

As the U.S. and Panama implement this new deportation program, policymakers and human rights advocates will be closely monitoring its effects. The challenge lies in balancing national security concerns with humanitarian obligations and the economic implications of such policies. The outcome of this initiative may set a precedent for future international cooperation on migration management, potentially reshaping the landscape of global immigration policies.

“I understand that there are deep-rooted reasons for migration, but each country has to resolve its problem,.” said Panamanian President Jose Raul Mulino.

As this program unfolds, it will be crucial to assess its effectiveness in deterring irregular migration, its impact on genuine asylum seekers, and its cost-effectiveness for U.S. taxpayers. The coming months will reveal whether this unconventional approach to migration control can achieve its intended goals while upholding international legal and ethical standards.