ICE Issues New Memo Allowing Rapid Deportations to Third Countries

ANKARA, Turkey — U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has issued a new memo authorizing rapid deportations of migrants to countries where they are not citizens. This alarming policy change allows ICE to proceed with deportations on as little as six hours’ notice, even if receiving countries offer no assurances of safety, media reports revealed on Saturday.

According to the Washington Post, ICE Acting Director Todd Lyons announced that a recent Supreme Court ruling lifted a previous block on these deportations, enabling them to “immediately” resume. The guidance outlines that standard removal notices are typically 24 hours but may be reduced to six hours under “exigent circumstances.”

Immigration lawyers have expressed serious concerns, warning that this change could place thousands of migrants in danger. “It puts thousands of lives at risk of persecution and torture,” stated Trina Realmuto, head of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, which is challenging the new guidance in court.

The recent measures allow ICE officers to exercise discretion to deport individuals to third countries, regardless of whether those countries consent to take them or if the individuals have ties there. The policy contradicts established asylum laws and international agreements designed to protect individuals from being sent to harm.

“These actions strip away key procedural protections and leave many vulnerable to exploitation,” said Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, a legal representative in a related case. He added, “This is a category of people who understood themselves to be out of the woods.”

While the Department of Homeland Security has not specified how many immigrants may be impacted by this policy, critics are urging legal challenges. The memo’s implementation follows a Supreme Court decision returned on June 23, which effectively approved the new deportation processes.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, dissenting in the court’s decision, cautioned, “In matters of life and death, it is best to proceed with caution.” As the situation unfolds, legal and human rights advocates continue to voice their opposition, stressing the potential for widespread harm.