“How are they supposed to survive?”: U.S. Deportations to  Unstable Congo Raise Urgent Ethical Questions

By Violet Ikong and Eloge Willy Kaneza

“Apart from legal considerations, one has to question the ethics of deporting people to countries that they have never visited before, where they do not know the language and culture, and where they have no social networks to assist and support them. How are they supposed to survive in such conditions?”

That stark warning from migration expert Jeff Crisp captures the growing concern surrounding a new U.S. policy: deporting migrants to third countries, including the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), a nation already grappling with conflict and mass displacement.

The United States is set to carry out these deportations under a new agreement with the conflict-affected African country. This move comes as President Donald Trump intensifies immigration crackdown efforts, including removing migrants to countries they are not from. With arrivals expected to begin in April, the DRC will become the latest African country to receive deportees in Trump’s second term.

In a January report, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) stated that more than three million migrants have left the country either willingly or by force in the last year, with some ending up in countries battling instability.

While the policy is framed by U.S. authorities as a legal tool to manage migration, it has triggered intense debate among experts and human rights advocates—particularly over its broader implications when applied to fragile states like the DRC.

Risks Behind the Approach

Trump’s migration control policy has been widely debated by migration experts and human rights activists, particularly its legal justification and whether it aligns with international law. In an interview with Amjambo Africa, Jeff Crisp, a migration expert and research fellow at the Refugee Studies Center at the University of Oxford, said some lawyers defend the policy by citing cases where migrants have no legal right to remain in a country. Crisp, however, urged a broader ethical assessment.

African countries including Rwanda, Cameroon, Eswatini, Uganda, South Sudan, Ghana, and Equatorial Guinea have all received U.S. deportees in the last year, some with no ties to the country in which they arrived. Crisp warned that such arrangements expose migrants to discrimination, social exclusion, and limited access to basic services. In the DRC, these risks are intensified by ongoing conflict. An estimated three million people have died from decades of instability, while more than seven million Congolese have been displaced since the late 1990s, particularly after the Second Congo War, reaching that level by the end of 2025. 

“While certain forms of instability can be unpredictable even for local people, migrants who lack that awareness may be put further at risk”

ADVERTISEMENT

“When migrants are sent to areas that are already experiencing instability, they lack the important local knowledge that many civilians have when experiencing that sort of violence,” said Ladd Serwat, Africa senior analyst at the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project (ACLED), in an interview with Amjambo Africa. He added that armed groups often control specific territories, knowledge that locals rely on for survival. “While certain forms of instability can be unpredictable even for local people, migrants who lack that awareness may be put further at risk,” he said.

Serwat also noted that risk levels depend heavily on where deportees are settled. Western DRC is relatively stable, he said, while eastern provinces remain highly volatile due to ongoing armed conflict. “In the last few years, the M23 rebel group and its allies have been the most prominent security threats,” Serwat said. “Armed groups that predate the M23 rebellion also operate in the region, notably the Islamic State Central Africa Province, which poses a high threat to civilians.”

Neither the U.S. nor the DRC has disclosed where deportees will be placed.

“Countries are being bullied.”

In a statement, DRC government spokesperson Patrick Muyaya said the agreement with the United States complies with national sovereignty and laws governing the stay of foreigners, and reflects the country’s commitment to human dignity and solidarity. However, critics argue that deeper geopolitical pressures may be influencing such arrangements, warning that African countries often face diplomatic consequences for refusal.

Civil society actors feel that absorbing deported migrants into already strained communities could intensify humanitarian pressure and social tensions. “These migrants were already classified as dangerous by U.S. authorities—what does that mean for the DRC?” one activist asked.

Human rights advocate and NGO coordinator Nadia Nyamushiya said: “In my view, this is not a good idea. History must guide us. Past mistakes must not be repeated. Some groups were once accepted under similar circumstances, and today they are killing Congolese people. We are already facing millions of displaced citizens. How can we host foreign migrants when our own people have no shelter? It is not rational. The United States should not dictate decisions to Congolese leaders. Our authorities must exercise discernment. Not every proposal should be accepted blindly. We are a sovereign country, and sometimes we must say no.”

A journalist from Goma—the largest city in eastern Congo, which has been under rebel control since January 2025—now displaced in Kinshasa, also rejected the plan: “The country is facing war, corruption, and multiple crises. The priority must be stabilizing the nation. The DRC is not ready to host immigrants. Even its own citizens are not protected.” He added that millions of internally displaced people remain without assistance. “This is not the right time. The population must come first.”

Lévis Djonga Kigiri, president of the Société Civile Plurielle, echoed similar concerns, saying national survival must take priority over external agreements. The citizen movement LUCHA also condemned the deal, saying that the DRC was “not a dumping ground for migration failures” and demanding its cancellation. It said the country should focus on insecurity in the east, lack of basic services, and humanitarian collapse.

“We are already suffering in camps. The government should prioritize its own people before thinking of hosting foreigners who may become an additional burden,” said a Congolese refugee in Burundi. Another added: “Given the insecurity in the country, this is not the right time. Even citizens are not safe. Some of these groups may include dangerous individuals. The government must be careful.”

Economic Implications

While the DRC has stated that the migrants’ stay in the country will be temporary, Philip Olayoku, a peace and conflict expert and head of the West African Transitional Justice Center (WATJCenter), warned that their longer-term presence could carry significant economic consequences. “If these deportations result in migrants becoming asylum seekers or refugees, the country’s already strained economy could come under further pressure,” he said.

In the last three years, the DRC’s economy has shown a gradual slowdown, with growth declining from 8.6% in 2023 to 6.2% in 2024 and 5.3% in 2025. Ranked among the poorest countries in the world, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) estimates that more than 14 million people in the DRC require assistance to survive.

Olayoku also warned that public reaction inside the country could turn negative if already limited resources are perceived to be shared with newly arrived deportees. “There is bound to be [a] reaction from the population against extending meagre resources of the country, because nationals may not be actual beneficiaries of whatever compensation the United States gives the DRC,” he said. He added that many African countries accept such arrangements under pressure rather than by free choice.

“I think countries are being bullied to receive deportees,” Olayoku said, citing Nigeria and South Sudan, which reportedly refused to accept deportees and later faced visa restrictions. He added that for many Africans, such policies reinforce the perception that the continent is being treated as a dumping ground for unwanted migrants, with acceptance often shaped by economic dependence on external powers.

Direction of Global Migration Policy

While Trump’s migration policy has drawn criticism, Crisp noted that it is not new in global practice.

“The general idea of deporting refugees and asylum seekers to places other than their [home country] can be traced back to the U.S. practice of sending Haitians to Guantanamo Bay, Australia’s ‘Pacific Solution’ of sending boat arrivals to Nauru and Papua New Guinea, the EU-Turkey deal reached a decade ago, and the unsuccessful UK-Rwanda scheme,” he said.

He called it a reflection of a broader global trend. “Over the past 25 years, states in the Global North have increasingly externalized their refugee and migration policies, incentivizing and inducing states in the Global South to assume responsibility for preventing onward movement and accepting deportees.”

As the first deportees prepare to land in the DRC, major questions remain about their fate—and what this arrangement will mean for a country already facing deep humanitarian and security crises.