By Pastor Herrera Macurán
Horizonte Cubano News
August 25, 2026 — Afternoon Edition
Immigration enforcement is an executive responsibility, but executive power is not unlimited.
When the United States removes migrants to countries other than their own, the issue becomes larger than an ordinary deportation case.
It can involve foreign governments, diplomatic arrangements, American taxpayer money, detention systems, international obligations and decisions about what happens to people after they leave American custody.
That makes third-country deportations not only an immigration issue.
They are also a matter for congressional oversight.
Congress should start asking harder questions.
What Agreement Has the United States Made?
When another country agrees to receive migrants who are not its citizens, Americans deserve to know the basic structure of that arrangement.
Is there a written agreement?
Which American agency negotiated it?
What commitments did the United States make?
Is money involved?
Are security assistance, development funds or other benefits connected to the arrangement?
How long will the agreement remain in effect?
What responsibilities does the receiving country assume after accepting the deportees?
Not every diplomatic conversation can occur publicly.
But secrecy cannot become an excuse for avoiding democratic accountability.
If American policy depends upon foreign governments receiving people who have little connection to those countries, Congress has a legitimate responsibility to understand how and why those arrangements operate.
Follow the Money
Congress controls federal spending.
That alone gives lawmakers an important responsibility.
Third-country removal programs may involve transportation, detention, security, contractors, diplomatic negotiations and potentially payments or assistance to foreign governments.
How much does each removal cost?
How does that compare with removal to a person’s country of nationality?
Are American funds being transferred directly or indirectly to receiving governments?
Are private contractors involved?
What services are taxpayers purchasing?
These are ordinary oversight questions.
They should not become controversial simply because immigration is politically sensitive.
Taxpayers have a right to know how their money is being used.
What Happens After Arrival?
The government’s responsibility cannot be evaluated solely by confirming that an aircraft departed American territory.
Congress should understand what happens at the destination.
Are deportees released?
Are they detained?
If detained, under whose authority?
For how long?
Can they contact relatives?
Can they obtain legal assistance?
Can international humanitarian organizations reach them?
Can they seek lawful status in the receiving country?
Can they eventually return to their country of nationality?
These questions become especially important when a migrant has no meaningful family, cultural or historical connection to the country receiving him or her.
Removal should not create a system in which people effectively disappear from public view once they leave American custody.
Congress Should Demand Reporting
Congress does not necessarily need to prohibit third-country removals in order to exercise meaningful oversight.
It can require information.
The executive branch could be required to report periodically on the number of people removed to third countries, their nationalities, receiving countries, program costs, applicable agreements and safeguards.
Congress could also require notification when new third-country arrangements are established.
Classified information could remain protected when genuinely necessary.
But basic policy information should be available to lawmakers — and as much as reasonably possible to the public.
Transparency disciplines government.
It forces officials to explain decisions before those decisions become permanent policy.
Oversight Is Not Obstruction
In today’s political environment, congressional oversight is often portrayed as partisan interference.
That is a mistake.
Oversight is one of Congress’s constitutional responsibilities.
When Democrats control the White House, Republicans should scrutinize executive power.
When Republicans control the White House, Democrats should scrutinize executive power.
And members of the president’s own party should not abandon their institutional responsibilities merely because they support the administration.
Congress is not an extension of the White House.
It is a separate branch of government.
Immigration policy does not change that fact.
Foreign Policy Cannot Be Conducted Through Immigration Alone
Third-country deportation arrangements also raise a broader question.
What happens when immigration policy begins shaping America’s relationships with smaller or economically vulnerable countries?
A government may agree to receive deportees because it wants economic assistance, diplomatic recognition, security cooperation or improved relations with Washington.
That possibility does not automatically make an agreement illegitimate.
But it does make scrutiny necessary.
Congress should understand whether immigration arrangements are becoming instruments of foreign policy and what commitments are being made in exchange.
The American public deserves to know whether immigration enforcement is creating obligations abroad that extend beyond immigration itself.
There Must Be Standards for Receiving Countries
Not every country should automatically qualify as an appropriate destination.
Congress should consider establishing clear standards governing third-country removals.
Those standards could examine whether the receiving government can provide basic security, whether deportees will be treated according to applicable law, whether mechanisms exist for monitoring their treatment and whether the country has the institutional capacity to receive them.
The purpose would not be to prevent immigration enforcement.
It would be to establish predictable rules.
Government power works better when officials know the boundaries before making decisions.
The Question Is Bigger Than One Administration
Americans should resist evaluating executive authority only according to whether they support the president currently exercising it.
Every precedent survives the administration that creates it.
A power expanded today may be inherited by a president with completely different political objectives tomorrow.
That is why Congress must defend its institutional authority regardless of party.
The question is not simply whether one agrees with a particular deportation.
The question is:
What powers should any president possess when transferring people to foreign countries?
That deserves a serious national discussion.
Congress Should Act Like Congress
Immigration policy has become dominated by presidential actions, federal agencies, court battles and political rhetoric.
Congress frequently complains from the sidelines.
That is not enough.
Lawmakers have legislative authority.
They control appropriations.
They conduct hearings.
They can subpoena witnesses and documents where legally appropriate.
They can require reporting.
They can establish statutory standards.
And they can investigate whether federal programs are operating as Congress intended.
Third-country deportations provide another test of whether Congress is willing to exercise those responsibilities.
The United States can enforce immigration law.
It can negotiate with foreign governments.
It can remove individuals who have no lawful right to remain when the law permits removal.
But when American policy sends people to countries that are not their own, Americans deserve more than a government announcement after the decision has already been made.
They deserve to know the rules.
They deserve to know the costs.
They deserve to know the agreements.
And Congress should insist on knowing what happens after the airplane lands.
Immigration enforcement requires authority.
Democratic government requires accountability.
The United States should demand both.
Pastor Herrera Macurán is the founder of Horizonte Cubano News. The views expressed in this article are those of the author.