Vanished in Ghana: US Deports 19 West African Migrants



By Darius Spearman (africanelements)




Support African Elements at patreon.com/africanelements and hear recent news in a single playlist. Additionally, you can gain early access to ad-free video content.




The disappearance of 19 West African migrants is a story about more than just a single event. After being deported from the United States to Ghana, the group vanished into an undisclosed location, leaving their lawyer and families unable to confirm their safety (apnews.com). This incident pulls back the curtain on the complex machinery of U.S. immigration enforcement and its cooperation with African nations. It reveals a disturbing pattern where the lives and rights of Black migrants become bargaining chips in international diplomacy. To understand how these 19 people could simply disappear, we must look at the long history behind today’s headlines.



This situation is the direct result of policies and attitudes that have shaped U.S. immigration for over a century. The story begins not in Ghana, but in the legislative halls of the United States, where laws have long been used to control who is considered worthy of becoming an American. Consequently, the current crisis facing these migrants is a modern echo of a deeply rooted legacy of exclusion and racial bias.



A Legacy of Exclusion in US Immigration Policy



The foundation of U.S. deportation practices rests on a history of racism and nativism (oxfordre.com). Nativism is an ideology that favors native-born inhabitants over immigrants, often viewing newcomers as a threat to the nation’s culture and economy (britannica.com). Early on, this sentiment targeted European groups like Irish Catholics (bc.edu). However, it quickly expanded to include explicitly racial targets. While the Chinese Exclusion Act is a well-known example, the "Asiatic Barred Zone" created by the 1917 Immigration Act banned people from a wide swath of Asia (wikipedia.org).



For people of African descent, the path was complicated. The Naturalization Act of 1870, passed during Reconstruction, theoretically allowed "aliens of African nativity" to become citizens for the first time (blackpast.org). This was a step forward, building on the 14th Amendment's promise of citizenship (wikipedia.org). At the same time, this act solidified the exclusion of other non-white groups, particularly Asians (wm.edu). Any progress was soon undermined by the quota acts of 1921 and 1924, which were designed to preserve America's "racial homogeneity" (migrationpolicy.org). These laws restricted immigration to a small percentage of the number of residents from each country already living in the U.S. as of 1890 (wikipedia.org). Because the African-born population was tiny, the quota for the entire continent of Africa was just 1,100 people (migrationpolicy.org).



The Shift After 1965: New Doors, Old Problems



A major change came with the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (wikipedia.org). This landmark law finally abolished the racist national origin quota system. It established a new preference system focused on family reunification and employment skills (pewresearch.org). This opened the door for a significant increase in voluntary immigration from Africa and Asia. The number of legal African immigrants arriving annually jumped from under 40,000 before 1995 to around 50,000 today (migrationpolicy.org). The Black African immigrant population is now one of the fastest-growing in the U.S., experiencing huge growth in recent decades (americanimmigrationcouncil.org).



Despite these new pathways, the post-1965 era also marked the beginning of "mass and constant deportations" (fwd.us). A series of laws began to tightly weave immigration enforcement into the criminal justice system in a process now known as "crimmigration" (whyy.org). The 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) was a critical turning point. It dramatically expanded the list of crimes that could make a non-citizen deportable, including minor offenses (stanford.edu). Furthermore, these new rules were applied retroactively, meaning a long-term legal resident could be deported for a minor crime committed years earlier (stanford.edu).





Population Growth of Black African Immigrants in the U.S.


~200%
1980s & 1990s


~100%
2000s


This chart shows the approximate rate of increase in the overall population of Black African immigrants residing in the U.S. over multi-decade periods (americanimmigrationcouncil.org).



Black Immigrants in the Crosshairs of Deportation
This "crimmigration" system has had a devastating and unequal impact on Black immigrants. They are disproportionately targeted for deportation on criminal grounds compared to other immigrant groups, even though they do not commit crimes at higher rates (vera.org). In 2013, an astonishing 76% of Black immigrants were deported for alleged criminal offenses, compared to just 45% of all immigrants (vera.org). This disparity is not an accident; it is the result of systemic racism that operates at every level of law enforcement.
The problem starts with over-policing and racial profiling in Black communities (tminstituteldf.org). These practices lead to more frequent stops, searches, and arrests for Black individuals, including immigrants, creating more opportunities for them to enter the deportation pipeline (freedomtothrive.org). Once flagged, programs like Secure Communities ensure that local arrest data is shared with federal immigration authorities, turning minor infractions into potential deportations (stanford.edu). Even inside immigration detention, Black migrants face harsher treatment. They are often held longer, denied bond, and placed in solitary confinement at higher rates than other groups (freedomforimmigrants.org).




Deportations on Criminal Grounds (2013)



76%

Black Immigrants



45%

All Immigrants


This chart illustrates the disproportionate percentage of Black immigrants deported on criminal grounds compared to the overall immigrant population (vera.org).



"Third Country" Deals and Circumventing Protections
The 19 migrants who vanished in Ghana had legal protections preventing their removal to their home countries (apnews.com). These protections are based on international and U.S. law, primarily the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT) and a status called Withholding of Removal ([SOURCE-80], [SOURCE-63]). Both are designed to uphold the principle of **non-refoulement**, which forbids sending anyone to a country where they are likely to face torture, persecution, or other irreparable harm (ohchr.org). This is a fundamental human right.
To get around these legal obligations, the U.S. government, particularly under the Trump administration, has increasingly used a "third country" deportation strategy (cbsnews.com). This involves striking deals with other nations to accept deportees who cannot be legally sent to their home countries. These agreements are often secretive and coercive, with the U.S. using its power to pressure smaller nations into compliance (latimes.com). By deporting someone to a "safe" third country like Ghana, the U.S. government claims it has fulfilled its legal duties. However, critics argue this tactic violates due process rights and the spirit of non-refoulement, especially if the third country cannot or will not protect the deportee (americanbar.org).
The Case of Ghana: Pan-Africanism or Politics?
Ghana's government has defended its cooperation with the U.S. on "humanitarian grounds" and by invoking Pan-African principles (washingtonpost.com). Pan-Africanism is an ideology promoting the unity and solidarity of all African people, a movement in which Ghana's first president, Kwame Nkrumah, was a historic leader (okayafrica.com). The government claims it is offering refuge to fellow West Africans in distress (isd.gov.gh). However, its actions tell a different story. The deal with the U.S. was made secretly, without the parliamentary approval required by Ghana's constitution (jurist.org).
The true motivation appears to be political. In July of this year, the U.S. imposed visa restrictions on Ghanaians, citing high rates of visa overstays (washingtonpost.com). After Ghana agreed to accept the deportees, those visa restrictions were lifted in late September, a move Ghana's foreign minister hailed as a "major diplomatic win" (washingtonpost.com). Furthermore, Ghana has been negotiating for better trade terms and the removal of punitive tariffs on its exports (newsghana.com.gh). This timing strongly suggests a diplomatic trade-off where vulnerable migrants were used as leverage. The act of accepting these deportees only to then forcibly send them onward contradicts the very essence of Pan-African solidarity (washingtonpost.com).




Recent Deportations to Ghana

Initial Group of Deportees:
14


Second Group (The "Ghana 19"):
19


Deportees Dropped in Neighboring Countries (as of Oct.):
42

This data highlights the number of West African nationals recently deported by the U.S. to or through Ghana under the controversial agreement (latimes.com).



The Human Cost: From Squalid Camps to Silence
The experience of a previous group of deportees foreshadowed the current crisis. In September of this year, 14 West Africans were sent to Ghana under the same agreement (latimes.com). They were taken to a remote military camp and held in what lawyers described as "squalid conditions." Detainees lived in tents, had little running water, and some contracted malaria from "bad water and bad food" (latimes.com). Despite Ghana’s promises, some were forcibly sent to their home countries. One man, a bisexual from Gambia where same-sex relations are criminalized, was immediately returned there and forced into hiding (latimes.com).
This brings us back to the "Ghana 19." They arrived on November 5 and were placed in a hotel (apnews.com). Their lawyer, Ana Dionne-Lanier, was in contact with them. Then, suddenly, they were moved. Some were put on a bus to an unknown border location, while her client and others were taken from the hotel "under heavy armed guard" (apnews.com). Since then, there has been silence. The U.S. Department of Justice maintains it cannot control how other countries treat deportees (washingtonpost.com). Yet this stance ignores the moral responsibility that comes with sending vulnerable people into a legal and political black hole, stripping them of protection and visibility. The fate of the 19 remains unknown, a stark symbol of a system where human rights are easily erased.
About the Author
Darius Spearman is a professor of Black Studies at San Diego City College, where he has been teaching for over 20 years. He is the founder of African Elements, a media platform dedicated to providing educational resources on the history and culture of the African diaspora. Through his work, Spearman aims to empower and educate by bringing historical context to contemporary issues affecting the Black community.

Ver todos los episodios