It led to a prison in a country he had
never heard of.
When Mosquera stepped off a U.S. military
cargo plane in Eswatini, a small landlocked country in southern Africa, he did
not know where he was or why he had been taken there. He had spent most of his
life in the United States. Now, instead of returning to Cuba, the country he
left as a child, he was being held thousands of miles away in a
maximum-security prison.
His story raises a difficult question about
the changing meaning of deportation in America: What happens when a person
is removed from the United States but has nowhere to go?
Under the Trump administration, deportation
has become one of the central tools of immigration policy. The administration
promised to remove millions of immigrants, and federal immigration authorities
have dramatically expanded arrests and detention.
But the policy is no longer limited to
sending people back to their countries of origin.
The United States is increasingly relying
on third countries to accept deportees. Countries such as El Salvador,
Eswatini, Rwanda and others have entered arrangements with Washington to
receive people who cannot or are not being returned directly to their home
countries.
The result is a growing international
network of detention sites—a system in which people can find themselves
removed from the United States and then locked away in countries where they
have no citizenship, no legal status and, in some cases, no clear way to
challenge their detention.
From America to a prison in Eswatini
Mosquera's story shows how complicated this
system can become.
He arrived in the United States from Cuba
in 1980, when he was only 12 years old. As a young man, he served time in
prison after accepting a plea deal related to the shooting of a rival gangster.
His criminal record could have made him
deportable. But Cuba was not cooperating with U.S. deportations at the time, so
Mosquera remained in America.
Over the years, his life changed.
He became a plumber. He became a born-again
Christian. He married and raised four daughters.
For decades, America was not simply the
country where he lived. It was where he built his family, his work and his
identity.
Then, when he went to renew his work
permit, an immigration official told him that his time in the country was over.
After spending time in U.S. immigration
detention, Mosquera was put on a military plane and sent to Eswatini.
He was not sent there as a citizen or as
someone who had chosen to live there. He was sent there because the United
States needed somewhere to place him.
That distinction matters.
In Eswatini, Mosquera has no citizenship
and no ordinary immigration status. Yet he remains in prison.
More than a year after arriving, he had
still not been charged with a crime in Eswatini. He had no normal court process
through which he could challenge his detention. There was also no clear date
for his release.
During a WhatsApp video call, Mosquera
asked a simple question:
“Do you think I’ll ever get out of here?”
It is difficult to imagine a more basic
question for someone in prison. Yet in Mosquera's case, even the answer is
unclear.
The rise of the third-country deportation
system
The United States has long deported
immigrants to countries other than the one in which they were arrested or
detained in certain circumstances. But the Trump administration has expanded
the idea into a broader policy tool.
Last year, the administration paid El
Salvador to hold hundreds of Venezuelan immigrants in a large prison. The
arrangement attracted international attention, particularly after some of those
detained later described alleged abuse and mistreatment.
Since then, similar arrangements have
appeared elsewhere.
The countries involved vary greatly, but
they share one important feature: they are willing to accept deportees whom the
United States wants removed.
For some governments, the agreements bring
significant financial benefits.
Eswatini, for example, received millions of
dollars under its arrangement with Washington. It is also one of the world's
last absolute monarchies.
Other countries involved in such
arrangements face political instability, economic hardship or serious
institutional challenges.
That creates an uncomfortable imbalance.
The United States has the resources and
political power to send people abroad. The receiving countries have an
incentive to accept them. But the people being transferred may have very little
ability to influence what happens to them afterward.
They can become prisoners in a country they
have never lived in.
When deportation becomes indefinite
detention
Deportation is normally understood as a
process with an endpoint.
A person is removed from one country and
returned to another.
But third-country detention creates a
different situation.
If the receiving country does not consider
the deportee its citizen, it may have little reason to release that person into
society. At the same time, the person's original country may refuse to accept
them.
The person can therefore become trapped
between governments.
America does not want them back.
Their home country does not want them back.
The third country has no real connection to
them.
And the detainee is left in the middle.
This is what makes the emerging system so
troubling. Deportation can become more than removal. It can become a form of
legal limbo.
A person may no longer be inside the
American immigration system, but that does not mean they are free.
They may simply have been moved beyond
America's borders.
The language of “dangerous” people
The administration has defended these
arrangements by presenting deportees as exceptionally dangerous individuals.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security
described Mosquera and four other men sent to Eswatini as “depraved monsters”
and said their home countries considered them too dangerous to accept.
Such language is powerful because it
changes how the public sees the people being deported.
A person with a criminal record can easily
become defined only by that record.
But Mosquera's story is more complicated.
He did serve time for a serious crime. Yet
he also spent decades building a life in America. He worked. He married. He
raised children. He became part of a community.
None of this erases his criminal history.
But neither should his criminal history
erase the rest of his life.
The question is not whether governments
have the right to enforce immigration law. They do.
The deeper question is whether enforcement
can be carried out in a way that leaves people with no meaningful legal path to
challenge their detention.
A policy that can reach far beyond
America's borders
The most important part of this story may
be what happens next.
Once a government begins using foreign
prisons as an extension of its immigration system, the physical boundaries of
detention become much less clear.
A person can be arrested in one country,
detained in another and imprisoned in a third.
The legal protections available in one
country may not travel with the person.
That creates a system that is difficult for
ordinary citizens to see and even harder for detainees to challenge.
The prison is somewhere else.
The government paying for it is somewhere
else.
The detainee's home country is somewhere
else.
Responsibility becomes divided across
borders.
And when responsibility is divided,
accountability can become harder to find.
The people left behind
There is also another side to these
deportations: the families.
Mosquera has four daughters. His life in
America was built around them.
When a person is sent thousands of miles
away, deportation does not affect only the person being removed. It affects
children, spouses, parents and communities.
A prison in Eswatini may be far from the
American public, but the consequences of that imprisonment can remain inside
American homes.
This is why the story of deportation cannot
be measured only by arrest numbers or flights.
Every deportation involves a human being
with a history.
Some have criminal records. Others may not.
Some may have spent most of their lives in
America. Some may have arrived only recently.
But when they are sent to countries where
they have no citizenship and no clear legal status, a new question emerges:
Who is responsible for what happens to
them?
“There’s no way out”
Mosquera has now become an unofficial guide
for the new arrivals in Eswatini.
He shows them how to receive money from
their families. He tells them where they can wash their clothes. He explains
what to do when the electricity goes out.
New detainees arrive, and Mosquera helps
them understand a place that was completely foreign to him when he first landed
there.
Meanwhile, guards are preparing more space.
More men may come.
More people may be transferred from America
to a country they have never known.
For Mosquera, the cruelest part may be that
he once believed the political promises that helped bring the current
administration back to power.
In 2024, his sister remembered him
supporting Donald Trump. He believed Trump would change America for working
people like him.
Now he is sitting in a prison in Eswatini,
more than a year after being removed from the country he had called home since
childhood.
His story exposes a profound contradiction
in modern immigration enforcement.
A government can remove a person from its
territory without actually giving that person a place to return to.
And when there is no destination,
deportation can become something else entirely.
A prison without a sentence.
A detention without an end date.
And, for people like Roberto Mosquera, a
question that remains unanswered:
“Do you think I’ll ever get out of here?”
0 Comments