By Franchesca Sterling
Non-refoulement is a fundamental principle of international law — primarily within refugee and human rights law — that prohibits states from returning any person to a country where they face a real risk of persecution, torture, cruel or inhuman treatment, or other irreparable harm.
This principle may be one reason the United States is seeking to distribute the burden of individuals who entered illegally, rejected asylum seekers, visa overstays, and others currently residing in the country. It also helps explain why plans associated with President Trump's Homeland Security Advisor Stephen Miller — to deport arrested foreigners to third countries across the Western Hemisphere — are being viewed as an attractive option.
President Trump has made his position on immigration origins clear. In 2018, he publicly labelled Haiti, El Salvador, and several African nations as "shithole countries." In 2025, he reiterated that stance, calling for a "permanent pause on Third World migration, including from hellholes like Afghanistan, Haiti, and Somalia," while simultaneously expressing a preference for immigrants from Norway, Sweden, and Denmark.
The racial undertones of that position are difficult to ignore. Trump does not oppose immigration categorically — his mother was an immigrant, and he has married two. His objection appears rooted in race and ethnicity. It is precisely that framing which makes the casual use of terms like "export" or "import" of human beings so troubling, echoing the language of chattel slavery. Similarly, the use of phrases like "import labour" within our own region only enables that mindset and reflects a degree of internalised harm.
I am not xenophobic. I believe in the dignity of all people, regardless of race, ethnicity, nationality, creed, sexual orientation, age, or religion. My professional life reflects this. I work at the Organization of American States, where I subscribe to the principle championed by former Secretary General Luis Almagro: "more rights for more people." For the past eight years, I have also volunteered as a Child Advocate with the Young Center for Immigrant Children's Rights, managing cases involving unaccompanied immigrant children in the United States — among the most vulnerable populations, including infants between one and twenty-four months old who are entirely unaware of their circumstances.
With that context established, I turn to the specific question of Antigua and Barbuda accepting third country nationals (TCNs) deported from the United States.
Even if these individuals carry no criminal record, accepting them under a TCN arrangement would expose Antigua and Barbuda to a significant legal predicament. Based on how similar agreements have unfolded across the Americas in recent months, we could find ourselves unable to deport these individuals should they later commit crimes on our soil — because the principle of non-refoulement would apply. No other country would be obligated to take them.
However, our own laws offer a measure of protection here. The liability for repatriation rests with the "owner or agent of the vessel in which the person arrived… to the country to which the person belongs or from which the person embarked for Antigua and Barbuda." In practical terms, this means the United States Government would bear responsibility for accepting these individuals back if any offence were committed on Antiguan soil — provided a formal TCN arrangement is agreed upon.
This raises further legal questions. Would the Government of Antigua and Barbuda reclassify these third country nationals as bona fide visitors upon arrival? If so, who would be "responsible for the maintenance and accommodation of that bona fide visitor during the period of their stay"? Under the structure of such a government-to-government arrangement, Antigua and Barbuda would effectively become the sponsor. If reclassification is not being pursued, what precisely would their legal status be?
Section 14(viii) of the Immigration and Passport Act, 2014 — which governs the right of entry into Antigua and Barbuda — permits entry to "any other persons or class of persons to whom this section may be applied by Order made by the Minister." Since "third country nationals" are not explicitly listed in the legislation, would such a Ministerial Order be required? And does this matter need to proceed before Parliament?
There are also practical documentation concerns. Many immigrants who entered the United States illegally did so without a travel document or passport, which in many cases were destroyed during their journey. Obtaining birth certificates for undocumented individuals is often difficult once they are in U.S. territory, due to slow consular processes and because some births — particularly in rural or remote communities — were never formally registered.
Antigua and Barbuda's Immigration and Passport Act, 2014 is unambiguous: persons without a travel document or passport shall not be permitted to enter the country. While discretion is afforded to the Minister or the Chief Immigration Officer, that discretion should be reserved for genuine humanitarian emergencies. Travel from the United States — a country widely regarded as safe — does not constitute such an emergency.
Public health is another serious concern. The United States requires incoming immigrants to be vaccinated for influenza; Hepatitis A and B (requiring administration three to six months before departure); rotavirus; polio; measles, mumps, and rubella; tetanus; diphtheria; pertussis including boosters; meningococcal and pneumococcal diseases; and varicella. Will Antigua and Barbuda hold incoming TCNs to the same standard? Will they be tested for tuberculosis and HIV/STDs, and will mental health evaluations be conducted?
Where documented vaccination history is absent, laboratory evidence of immunity is acceptable for measles, mumps, rubella, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, polio, and varicella. If Antigua and Barbuda proceeds with accepting TCNs, each individual should be examined by a medical practitioner, as stipulated under the Immigration Act, to verify that their medical records are current. I strongly recommend this course of action.
According to ICE and DHS data from 2024 and 2025, the top nationalities subject to deportation orders from the United States include individuals from Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Ecuador, Colombia, Brazil, and Peru — with Mexico dominating due to geographical proximity. Also represented are nationals from Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, China, Jamaica, the Philippines, Vietnam, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, among others.
Antigua and Barbuda is a majority Black country. We must be clear-eyed about the racial and geopolitical context in which these TCN arrangements are being proposed, and we must ensure that any decision made by our government is grounded in the rule of law, public health, and the genuine best interests of our people.
