In a move that has drawn both praise and condemnation, the United States and Belize have signed a new “safe third country” immigration agreement, allowing the Trump administration to transfer asylum seekers to the Central American nation. The pact marks the latest step in President Donald Trump’s campaign to overhaul the US asylum system and significantly expand mass deportations across the Western Hemisphere.
What the “Safe Third Country” Deal Means
The agreement, signed on Monday, enables the US government to deport asylum seekers to Belize, designating it as a country where migrants can safely apply for protection instead of remaining in the United States.
Belize described the move as an act “grounded in the commitment of states to cooperate under the 1951 UN Convention on the Status of Refugees.” In a statement on Facebook, the Belizean government said:
“The agreement reinforces Belize’s commitment to international law and humanitarian principles while ensuring strong national safeguards.”
The US State Department’s Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs called the deal “an important milestone in ending illegal immigration, shutting down abuse of our nation’s asylum system, and reinforcing our shared commitment to tackling challenges in our hemisphere together.”
While the exact implementation details remain unclear, Belize indicated that it would receive asylum seekers in exchange for financial and technical assistance to strengthen its asylum processing, border security, and immigration systems.
Growing Network of Third-Country Deportation Deals
Since returning to office for a second term in January 2025, the Trump administration has aggressively pursued agreements with third-party nations to accept asylum seekers and deportees.
So far, nearly a dozen countries — including Costa Rica, El Salvador, Eswatini, Mexico, Panama, Rwanda, South Sudan, and Uganda — have agreed to similar arrangements. Earlier this month, Guatemala received its first deportation flight from the US under such a deal, carrying asylum seekers from non-Central American countries.
The administration argues these agreements are essential to manage migration and prevent “asylum shopping.” However, human rights groups and legal experts say these deals violate international refugee law by potentially sending vulnerable individuals to unsafe environments.
Critics Warn of Human Rights Risks
“Safe third country” agreements are meant to ensure that asylum seekers are sent to nations where they will not face persecution and can access fair asylum procedures. But critics argue that many of the countries designated under the Trump administration lack the capacity, stability, or infrastructure to provide such protections.
Human rights lawyers have cited examples of deportees being imprisoned or mistreated in countries like Eswatini and South Sudan, where legal safeguards are weak. In one recent case, five men deported to Eswatini were reportedly incarcerated without access to legal counsel or asylum hearings.
“These deals are outsourcing America’s moral responsibility,” said María González, a human rights attorney with the Refugee Legal Center. “They place asylum seekers in grave danger and undermine decades of international refugee protections.”
Belize Defends Its Role
Belize has pushed back against suggestions that it is being used as a “dumping ground” for US deportees. Its government emphasized that it retains “an absolute veto over transfers” and has set strict limits on the number and nationality of people it will accept.
“No person who is deemed to be a threat to public safety or national security will be allowed to enter or remain in Belize,” the government’s statement read.
The deal still requires ratification by the Belize Senate, where it is expected to face intense scrutiny from opposition lawmakers and civil society groups.
Opposition Voices Concern
Prominent opposition leader Tracy Taegar Panton questioned whether Belize has the resources to meet international standards as a designated safe third country.
“To be recognized as a ‘Safe Third Country,’ Belize must guarantee human rights protections and provide access to housing, healthcare, and legal services,” she wrote on social media. “The reality, however, is stark — our asylum system is underfunded and overwhelmed.”
Panton warned that the agreement could overburden Belize’s fragile immigration infrastructure and damage its international reputation.
“Belize cannot and must not be used as a dumping ground for individuals other countries refuse to accept,” she said.
US Deportation Strategy Faces Scrutiny
The Trump administration’s immigration agenda has faced mounting criticism for attempting to bypass both domestic and international asylum obligations.
Under US law and the 1951 Refugee Convention, it is illegal to return asylum seekers to countries where they might face persecution or torture. Yet the administration has invoked broad executive powers to justify deportations to nations deemed safe, even when those nations have unstable security situations.
Recent deportation operations have led to controversial outcomes, including instances where migrants were sent to third countries and later re-deported to their countries of origin — sometimes in violation of non-refoulement principles.
A Broader Trend in US Immigration Policy
Analysts view the Belize agreement as part of a broader geopolitical strategy to externalize US border enforcement. Similar policies have been used by the European Union, which funds refugee containment in North African countries.
Supporters of the Trump administration argue that such agreements reduce illegal crossings, discourage human smuggling networks, and strengthen regional cooperation.
Critics counter that these deals shift the humanitarian burden to smaller, poorer nations ill-equipped to process asylum claims or protect vulnerable populations.
What Comes Next
The Belize “safe third country” agreement is expected to face legal challenges in both the US and Belize. Immigration lawyers have vowed to challenge its implementation, arguing that it violates asylum seekers’ constitutional and human rights.
If ratified, the deal could make Belize one of the few Central American countries legally designated to host asylum seekers transferred from the US, potentially transforming its role in the region’s migration landscape.
Meanwhile, opposition groups in Belize and US-based immigrant advocacy networks continue to mobilize, warning that the policy sets a dangerous precedent.
“This is not just about Belize,” said Carolina Reyes, an immigration advocate in Washington, D.C. “It’s about dismantling the very idea of asylum and replacing it with deportation diplomacy.”
Leave a Reply