Eswatini repatriates US deportee to Jamaica amid rights-group criticism

Eswatini said on Saturday that it had repatriated a United States deportee to Jamaica. Orville Isaac Etoria, 62, was voluntarily repatriated at the weekend and was warmly welcomed by members of his family, the government said. The release aligns with Eswatini’s position that it periodically returns nationals who have become entangled in U.S. immigration enforcement actions, though rights advocates question the circumstances under which some individuals are sent to Eswatini and then onward.

The move comes amid continued controversy over a group of deportations that began earlier this year, when five people were expelled from the United States to Eswatini—three of them from Cuba, and one each from Laos, Vietnam and Yemen. The U.S. government described those deportees as "depraved monsters" at the time of the transfer in July, a characterization rights groups have rejected as a blanket label for individuals who have lived much of their lives in the United States and who may have developed ties to communities there.

Since then, the deportees have been held in solitary confinement in a maximum-security prison in Mbabane, Eswatini’s capital. Lawyers for the remaining four say they have not been able to contact their clients, raising concerns about due process and access to counsel. Eswatini’s government has said it is engaging in efforts to repatriate all of the individuals involved in the deal, though it has not provided a timeline for when the other four might be returned to their home countries or to the United States.

The episode sits at the intersection of a broader political debate in the United States about immigration enforcement and the durability of agreements with foreign governments. Former President Donald Trump framed mass deportations as a centerpiece of his campaign, and his administration pursued policies that sought to remove hundreds of thousands of people who had been living in the United States for years. Critics say such measures often overlook the complexities of individual cases, including family ties and long-term residency, and can put people in precarious legal situations abroad.

Etoria had spent decades in the United States after arriving as a child and had become a lawful permanent resident. He had reportedly transformed his life in the United States, including periods of reintegration and employment, before being deported and subsequently placed in Eswatini’s detention system. Legal advocates for Etoria and others argue that the deportation arrangement violated due-process protections, noting that his removal occurred without clear opportunities for contesting the decision in U.S. or Eswatini courts, and without timely access to legal representation after arrival in Eswatini.

Rights groups in the United States have denounced the deal as unconstitutional and have organized protests outside the American embassy in Eswatini’s capital, Mbabane, and in other locations. They have argued that Parliament’s approval is required to formalize international removal arrangements and have filed legal challenges to overturn the deal, asserting that the governments involved acted beyond their constitutional powers by striking a bilateral agreement without proper legislative authorization.

Eswatini, a small, landlocked nation bordered by South Africa and Mozambique, is the last remaining absolute monarchy in Africa. King Mswati III has led the country since 1986, and the government has faced international scrutiny over human rights concerns and the country’s political system. The case has underscored ongoing tensions over how global migration and asylum policies intersect with domestic justice systems in both the United States and Eswatini.

While Etoria’s voluntary repatriation to Jamaica marks a notable conclusion to his chapter within this particular deportation framework, the broader issue remains unsettled for the other four detainees and for the policy contours that govern extraditions, deportations, and international cooperation on immigration enforcement. Advocates say there is a need for greater transparency about the criteria used to designate individuals for transfer, the due-process safeguards that accompany such decisions, and the protections available to people once they are returned to their home countries or third destinations. Officials in Eswatini have not publicly disclosed a detailed legal justification for why the program was pursued or how it aligns with the country’s own laws. The United States has said only that it believes it acted within its powers and that cooperation with host countries is essential to managing unlawful migration and security concerns.

As this case unfolds, observers will watch closely for any formal statements from the governments involved regarding the status and welfare of the other deportees, and for any legislative steps in Eswatini or the United States to address due-process concerns raised by rights groups. The international debate over how to handle long-standing residency and security claims continues to evolve, as countries weigh national sovereignty, humanitarian considerations, and the practicalities of enforcing immigration laws across borders.