Mass deportation of migrants from the U.S. – Is Kosovo far enough?

Following the principle of “out of sight, out of mind,” U.S. authorities are reaching out to distant countries, seeking their assistance in receiving migrants slated for deportation—regardless of their country of origin. According to American media reports, Kosovo has made the list of potential destinations for these individuals. Based on a possible agreement with the U.S., Pristina could stand to gain financially or politically, possibly through closer ties with the current Republican administration, according to interlocutors of Kosovo Online.

Written by: Dusica Radeka Djordjevic

“The farther from America, the better—so they can’t return over the border,” said U.S. Secretary of State Mark Rubio during a recent cabinet meeting where he discussed the search for countries willing to accept migrants currently residing in the United States.

According to unofficial information reported by U.S. media, the list of potential future destinations includes Libya, Rwanda, Benin, Moldova, Mongolia, Angola, Equatorial Guinea—and even Kosovo.

CNN sources reported that the Trump administration had even discussed transferring migrants with criminal records, who had served their sentences in the U.S., to Rwanda, where they would be offered some form of social support, such as scholarships or help in finding employment.

Amid these informal reports, the U.S. Embassy in Pristina officially announced last week that a deportation flight had been successfully carried out, made possible through close cooperation between U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Diplomatic Security Service, and the Kosovo Police.

No further details were provided regarding the number of deportees or their countries of origin.

When Kosovo Online asked the U.S. Embassy in Pristina whether an agreement had been reached between the American administration and Kosovo for the reception of deported migrants, and whether any had already been sent to Kosovo and from which countries, no clear answer was given.

“Enforcing our country’s immigration law is critical to the national and public safety of the United States, including ensuring the effective execution of final removal orders,” the embassy spokesperson said in a response to Kosovo Online.

Nikola Kovacevic, a human rights lawyer from Belgrade, says there is no apparent reason—other than financial gain—why any entity, including Kosovo, would enter into an agreement with the U.S. to receive deported migrants.

“Countries that do this do it for money or some kind of geopolitical trade-off. But what’s certain is that none of the countries mentioned have the capacity to independently care for refugees, asylum seekers, and immigrants without agreements with the U.S., the UK, or others. So why would they be able to do it better on behalf of another country when they can’t even do it for their own people, despite having a legal obligation under international law? That’s the main issue. These countries generally lack the capacity to uphold a high level of human rights. So how can we expect them to do so for money? Money is no guarantee,” Kovacevic told Kosovo Online.

Commenting on the criteria used by the U.S. in choosing partner countries, Kovacevic says it’s difficult to determine, but believes research would show that these are generally underdeveloped countries with rule-of-law issues, weak institutions, and high levels of corruption.

“These are countries with which such ‘dirty deals’ can probably be made, where, for some money, they will provide accommodation for these people. However, these external agreements have never really worked, and I hope they won’t. If they do, I am convinced they will quickly prove to be a human rights graveyard,” he said.

He pointed to refugee camps on Lesbos, Kos, and Samos—established to house migrants arriving from Turkey at the EU’s external borders—as prime examples. The European Court of Human Rights, he noted, condemns Greece nearly every week for keeping people, including children and vulnerable groups, in unsafe and unsanitary conditions.

The future of deported migrants sent to third countries depends on the terms of the agreements made.

“In Rwanda, for instance, the agreement was that migrants would go there and undergo asylum procedures while living in camps as asylum seekers. Albania has allowed part of its territory to be used by Italy for detention purposes. Models differ, and it’s necessary to examine the contents of each agreement to understand what might actually happen,” Kovacevic added.

What happens to migrants after they arrive in a country they’ve been deported to is a complex issue, says Dragoslav Raseta from the NGO Novi treci put.

“We know of a case in which a man ended up in prison in El Salvador without having committed any crime. He had no criminal record and held all the legal documents required to remain in the U.S. There are many such problems, and they put significant pressure on the legal systems of the receiving countries. These countries take on the responsibility of integrating the migrants, often by dispersing them across various cities. But NGOs and human rights organizations frequently highlight that basic human rights are often violated in such cases,” Raseta told Kosovo Online.

In some cases, he noted, deportees may be allowed to return to their countries of origin after spending a certain amount of time in the host country.

“These are usually impoverished groups without proper documentation or means to return home—or they come from countries plagued by war or extreme poverty, making return unrealistic. The U.S. typically aims for them to remain for one to two years in countries it has agreements with, to ensure they go through those countries’ legal and bureaucratic systems rather than simply disappearing,” he explained.

Raseta doesn’t believe a potential Kosovo-U.S. agreement would result in a long-term stay of deported migrants in Kosovo. If given the opportunity to move on to Western European countries, many would likely try, but he also points out that these migrants often lack the means to survive in the West or to return home.

If the U.S. and Pristina reach an agreement on receiving deported migrants, Raseta believes Kosovo could benefit financially or politically.

“Given that Kosovo has traditionally aligned more with Democratic than Republican administrations in the U.S., this issue could be a chance to restore a stronger connection between Washington and Pristina,” he said.

Should Kosovo receive financial compensation, it would resemble the agreement it has with Denmark to house Danish prisoners on its territory—a deal worth around €210 million over ten years.

Raseta said the U.S. has approached countries in the Western Balkans, the Middle East, and North Africa with similar proposals—including, besides Kosovo, North Macedonia, Albania, Libya, and Eswatini.

Such arrangements are not unusual for U.S. administrations. A similar model was used during the withdrawal from Afghanistan to find shelter for many refugees who had worked with Kabul authorities and the U.S.

In fact, Kosovo did receive Afghan refugees in 2021, according to the Kosovo Government, many of whom had worked with the U.S., NATO, or international organizations. They were temporarily housed in a camp near the U.S. Bondsteel base, which was closed two years later after most of the refugees resettled in NATO countries, though some remained in Kosovo.

Now, amid speculation of a possible migrant deal with the U.S., university professor Mazlum Baraliu believes Kosovo wouldn’t gain anything in return—just as it hasn’t over the past 20 years through the dialogue with Serbia or the EU integration process.

“We applied for membership in the Council of Europe and were rejected. The EU also received our application, but there’s been no progress—no steps forward,” Baraliu told Kosovo Online.

Asked whether Kosovo would organize the return of these migrants to their countries of origin, Baraliu said the matter should be viewed from a legal perspective and cited the Italy-Albania agreement, under which Albania accepts migrants sent by Italy while Italy retains full legal responsibility and Albania ensures dignified accommodation.

Any country that enters into such an agreement with the U.S., he concluded, must be prepared and demonstrate humanity toward “people in need.”