US criminals to be sent to jail in El Salvador’s mega-jail

In a bold and controversial move, the Trump administration has struck a deal with El Salvador to potentially send US criminals, including American citizens, to the Central American nation’s notorious mega-prison, CECOT (Terrorism Confinement Centre). While the proposal has been hailed as a cost-effective solution to overcrowded US prisons, it has sparked significant legal and ethical debates. Many critics argue that outsourcing incarceration to a foreign country raises profound questions about human rights, due process, and the very foundations of justice in the United States. This move is not just about addressing prison overcrowding but about the future of the US justice system and its role in global human rights.

Since its opening in 2023, the facility has become notorious for its harsh conditions, with inmates subjected to overcrowding, confined to windowless cells, denied visitors, and deprived of basic rights such as access to medical care

The deal, which was reached following a meeting between the US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele, allows the US to deport convicted criminals to El Salvador’s maximum-security facility, CECOT, regardless of their nationality, in exchange for a fee. Bukele has framed the agreement as a gesture of friendship, claiming that the fee would be “relatively low for the US but significant for us, making our entire prison system sustainable. While this might seem like a pragmatic solution for a nation struggling with an overcrowded prison system, critics warn that it could have serious ramifications for both the US and El Salvador.

In recent years, Bukele has adopted an iron-fisted approach to combat gang violence, a pressing issue in El Salvador. Following a violent attack in which more than 70 people were killed, Bukele made a chilling statement on social media: “Message for the gangs: because of your actions, your ‘homeboys’ will not be able to see a ray of sunshine.”

This sentiment was followed by the construction of CECOT, a prison designed to house 40,000 inmates. Since its opening in 2023, the facility has become notorious for its harsh conditions, with inmates subjected to overcrowding, confined to windowless cells, denied visitors, and deprived of basic rights such as access to medical care. Human rights organisations have condemned the conditions, highlighting reports of torture, abuse, and death due to neglect. The prison’s grim reputation casts a shadow over the prospect of sending US criminals to this facility, raising immediate concerns about the human rights violations that may occur as a result.

The proposal to send American citizens to a foreign prison is fraught with legal complexities, particularly regarding the protection of citizens under US law. The 14th Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees due process and equal protection to all citizens, including the right to be free from unlawful deportation. Legal experts have raised serious concerns about the constitutionality of this deal, asserting that deporting US citizens to foreign prisons is a clear violation of their constitutional rights.

Immigration law professor Stephen Yale-Loehr has stated that the idea of deporting US citizens is “blatantly unconstitutional.” Natural-born citizens are protected by the 14th Amendment, and any attempt to remove them from the country would likely face immediate legal challenges. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has also voiced its opposition to the proposal. Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, firmly declared, “You may not deport a US citizen, period.” This highlights the significant legal hurdles that would likely arise if the administration attempted to move forward with the plan.

While naturalised citizens can, in rare cases, be denaturalised and deported for certain crimes such as fraud or terrorism, the same protections do not extend to those born in the US. This means that any proposal to deport American citizens – especially to a foreign facility with questionable human rights records –  would face immediate legal scrutiny and likely result in protracted legal battles.

By sending prisoners to a facility like CECOT, the US could set a dangerous precedent that encourages other nations to follow suit

The Nelson Mandela Rules emphasise the right to humane conditions, access to healthcare, and rehabilitation programs, all of which are reportedly absent at CECOT. As a result, sending US inmates to a facility with such conditions would not only be unethical but also a violation of international human rights law. Critics argue that the US should not outsource its incarceration to a foreign country where prisoners are subjected to inhumane treatment and denied their basic rights.

Furthermore, this proposal risks normalising the outsourcing of justice to countries with weaker human rights protections. By sending prisoners to a facility like CECOT, the US could set a dangerous precedent that encourages other nations to follow suit. This could lead to further erosion of global human rights norms, as other countries with questionable prison systems may begin to offer similar deals to alleviate their overcrowded prisons.

Proponents of prison outsourcing argue that it could alleviate overcrowding and reduce costs. However, opponents caution that it could lead to a lack of oversight and accountability, as the US government would have limited control over conditions in foreign prisons. Without proper monitoring mechanisms, there is little guarantee that US inmates will receive fair treatment or due process. The lack of transparency in Bukele’s administration, coupled with the suspension of constitutional rights under his state of emergency, only heightens these concerns.

Moreover, outsourcing incarceration could lead to a decline in the US’s commitment to rehabilitation. The US justice system has long been criticised for its over-reliance on incarceration rather than rehabilitation programs aimed at reducing recidivism. By transferring prisoners to foreign prisons, the US may be forfeiting its responsibility to address the root causes of crime and provide inmates with the tools they need to reintegrate into society.

The stakes are high, and the world is watching. Will the US prioritise its moral and legal obligations, or will it sacrifice its principles for the sake of convenience and cost-cutting

The proposal to send US criminals to El Salvador’s mega-prison is more than just a logistical or financial decision – it is a test of America’s commitment to justice, fairness, and human rights. While the deal may offer short-term benefits, such as alleviating prison overcrowding and reducing costs, it raises serious questions about the long-term consequences of outsourcing incarceration.

As the Trump administration weighs its options, it must consider not only the legal and ethical implications of this deal but also the message it sends to the world. Will the US uphold its values of fairness, justice, and humanity, or will it prioritise expediency over principle? The decision will shape not only the future of the US justice system but also its standing on the global stage. In the words of human rights advocate Roman Palomares, “It is a sad day for America when we treat deported migrants and criminals like cattle, shuttling them from one country to another without regard for their rights or dignity.”

The stakes are high, and the world is watching. Will the US prioritise its moral and legal obligations, or will it sacrifice its principles for the sake of convenience and cost-cutting? The outcome of this debate will have far-reaching implications for the future of the US justice system and its role in the global fight for human rights.