Migration

As governments gather in New York for the second International Migration Review Forum (IMRF) to assess progress on global migration commitments, a central question looms: is the Global Compact for Migration improving conditions for people on the move?

The answer is yes.

Adopted in 2018, the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration is the first international agreement aimed at making migration safer and more humane through cooperation. For the Middle East and North Africa, the International Organization for Migration’s Global Overview of Migration Routes (2025), which tracks migration patterns, risks and deaths along major routes worldwide, offers a mixed picture. Some routes are shifting, but the risks people face remain severe, and in some cases are worsening.

Across the Mediterranean, arrival numbers alone can be misleading. In 2025, just more than 66,500 people reached Italy and Malta via the Central Mediterranean Route, almost identical to the year before. Arrivals to Greece, Cyprus and Bulgaria along the Eastern Mediterranean Route fell by about 30 percent, while the Western Mediterranean Route saw a modest rise. The Western African Atlantic Route to the Canary Islands recorded a dramatic 62 percent drop.

Taken in isolation, these figures might suggest reduced pressure on Europe’s borders. But lower arrivals do not automatically mean safer journeys. On the Eastern Mediterranean Route, deaths and disappearances nearly doubled in a single year. On the Western African Atlantic Route, deaths barely declined despite the steep drop in arrivals – meaning the probability of dying at sea increased. And on the Central Mediterranean Route, more than 1,300 people are known to have died in 2025, keeping it among the world’s deadliest migration corridors.

These trends reflect a broader reality: When border controls tighten or routes shift, journeys often become longer, more fragmented and more dangerous. People continue to move, but with fewer options, many are pushed towards irregular and high‑risk pathways.

Sudan illustrates how crises can reshape mobility across an entire region. Three years after the conflict erupted in April 2023, Sudan has become the world’s largest displacement crisis. At the peak, the number of internally displaced people more than tripled, reaching more than 11.5 million. Nearly 4 million people have returned home – often to damaged or partially destroyed housing – but almost 9 million remain displaced. Against this backdrop, it is not surprising that more Sudanese nationals are appearing along both Eastern and Central Mediterranean routes. For many, these journeys are not a first choice but a last resort, when options in Sudan and neighbouring countries are constrained.

The MENA region is also deeply connected to global mobility patterns. Movements from Asia and the Pacific to Europe increased significantly in 2025, with nearly one in three irregular arrivals originating from that region. Many of these journeys intersect with North Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean. A visa policy change in one country, a conflict flare‑up in another, or a new enforcement measure along a corridor can reshape risks across thousands of kilometres.

Meanwhile, the underlying pressures driving mobility in and around MENA are not easing. The region has one of the world’s youngest populations, with youth unemployment often exceeding 20 percent. Climate‑related shocks – droughts, floods, heatwaves – are increasingly interacting with conflict and economic stress. These factors rarely operate in isolation; they compound one another, shaping both internal displacement and cross‑border movement.
What does this mean for policy? Several priorities stand out.

First, search and rescue capacities must adapt to evolving realities. Stabilising or declining arrival numbers should never be mistaken for reduced risk. The sharp rise in deaths on some routes underscores the need for stronger cooperation on distress response, better data on deaths and disappearances, and sustained support for front-line communities. Saving lives at sea and on land is a humanitarian, legal and moral imperative.

Second, safe and regular pathways must be expanded. When regular options are limited, people facing violence, economic hardship or family separation are more likely to turn to irregular routes. Well‑designed labour mobility schemes, family reunification channels and humanitarian pathways can reduce reliance on dangerous journeys while supporting development in both origin and destination countries.

Third, better and shared data are essential. The Global Overview and Sudan displacement figures show the value of combining arrival statistics, intention surveys and information on deaths and missing people. Continued investment in national data systems can help governments anticipate pressures and design more effective policies.

Finally, intensified cooperation is required. In New York this week 130 states from all over the world are engaging in driving forward implementation of the Global Compact, recognising that migration is a phenomenon best governed through principled and constructive partnership.

This IMRF is about collaboration, and clarity about what we will do next. Expand safe and regular pathways. Strengthen fair recruitment and worker protection. Invest in data and protection systems that save lives. And cooperate across borders to take down criminal networks. If we get this right, fewer people will suffer, fewer lives will be lost – and more people, and societies, will thrive. That is the opportunity before us – here, and now. Let us seize it – together.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

In a 3-0 ruling, court says Trump administration misread a decades-old immigration law to justify mandatory detention.

A United States federal appeals court has rejected the Trump administration’s practice of subjecting most people arrested in its immigration crackdown to mandatory detention without the opportunity to seek release on bond.

In a 3-0 ruling on Tuesday, a panel of the New York-based US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit said the administration relied on a novel but incorrect interpretation of a decades-old immigration law to justify the policy.

Writing for the panel, US Circuit Judge Joseph F Bianco, a Trump appointee, warned that the government’s reading “would send a seismic shock through our immigration detention system and society”, straining already overcrowded facilities, separating families and disrupting communities.

Lawyers for the Trump administration say the mandatory detention policy is legal under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, passed in 1996.

But Bianco said the government had made “an attempt to muddy” the law’s “textually clear waters”, arguing that the administration’s interpretation “defies the statute’s context, structure, history, and purpose” and contradicts “longstanding executive branch practice”.

Under the Trump administration policy, the Department of Homeland Security last year took the position that non-citizens already living in the US, not just those arriving at the border, qualify as “applicants for admission” and are subject to mandatory detention.

Under federal immigration law, “applicants for admission” to the US are detained while their cases proceed in immigration courts and are ineligible for bond hearings.

The Department of Homeland Security has been denying bond hearings to immigrants arrested across the country, including those who have been living in the US for years without any criminal history, the Associated Press (AP) news agency reports.

That is a departure from the practice under previous US administrations, when most non-citizens with no criminal record who were arrested away from the border were given the opportunity to request a bond while their cases moved through immigration court, according to AP.

In such cases, bonds were often granted to people who were deemed not to be flight risks, and mandatory detention was limited to those who had just entered the country.

Amy Belsher, director of immigrants rights’ litigation at the New York Civil Liberties Union, said the appeals court ruling affirmed “that the Trump administration’s policy of detaining immigrants without any process is unlawful and cannot stand”.

“The government cannot mandatorily detain millions of noncitizens, many of whom have lived here for decades, without an opportunity to seek release. It defies the Constitution, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and basic human decency,” Belsher said in a statement.

Conflicting rulings set stage for Supreme Court review

The New York court’s decision comes after two other appeals courts ruled in favour of the Trump administration’s policy.

Acknowledging the opposing rulings, Judge Bianco said the panel was parting ways with them and instead aligning with more than 370 lower-court judges nationwide who have rejected the administration’s position as a misreading of the law.

The split among the courts increases the likelihood that the US Supreme Court will weigh in.

The latest ruling also upheld an order by a New York judge that led to the release of Brazilian national Ricardo Aparecido Barbosa da Cunha, who was arrested by immigration officials last year while driving to work after living in the US for more than 20 years.

“The court was right to conclude the Trump administration can’t just ⁠reinterpret the law at its own whim,” Michael Tan, a lawyer for Barbosa at the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement.

The Department of Justice, which is defending the mandatory detention policy in court, did not respond to a request for comment.

Lawyers say El Gamal family detained by Trump administration hours after returning home from 10-month detention.

A United States federal court has blocked the administration of United States President Donald Trump from deporting a woman and her five children following their release from immigration detention.

Hayam El Gamal and her five children, ranging in age from five to 18 years old, had been held for 10 months prior to their release earlier this week following a judge’s order. They had been held in detention for the longest of any known family during Trump’s second term in office,

But just days after returning to their home in Colorado, immigration authorities again detained the family on Saturday and sought to swiftly deport them, according to their lawyer.

“The Trump administration has kidnapped the El Gamal family in violation of a federal court order from the Western District of Texas, which ordered them Thursday not to detain or remove the family from the United States,” a statement from the family lawyers, shared by lawyer Eric Lee, said.

“The attempt to remove the El Gamal family is in violation of a federal court order and must be halted immediately,” it adds.

Lee said shortly after that US District Judge Fred Biery, who ordered the family’s initial release on Thursday, had granted an emergency order on Saturday barring their removal.

The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to Al Jazeera’s request for comment.

The Trump administration has at times flouted court orders barring it from deporting people from the US, pushing a hardline approach that critics say has defied legal constraints.

That has come amid a wider campaign to restrict immigration, legal and illegal, particularly from non-Western countries.

Hayam El Gamal and her children were detained by the Trump administration after her former husband, Mohamed Sabry Soliman, attacked a group of people in Boulder, Colorado, as they gathered in support of Israeli captives held by the Palestinian armed group Hamas in June 2025.

An 82-year-old woman later died from injuries sustained during the incident.

Soliman’s family condemned the attack and denied any knowledge that it was going to take place, with NBC News reporting that El Gamal divorced her husband soon after his arrest.

An FBI agent also testified under oath that there was no evidence that the family, who have not been charged with any crimes, was aware of the father’s plan.

Their nearly yearlong detention by the Trump administration has been described by the family’s lawyers and several lawmakers as an illegal and cruel effort to punish the family for an act they did not commit.

Following Soliman’s arrest, the White House, in a post on X, said it would seek to immediately expel the family, whose lawyers have said are in the process of applying for asylum after coming to the US on tourist visas from Egypt.

“Six One-Way Tickets for Mohamed’s Wife and Five Kids. Final Boarding Call Coming Soon,” the White House post said.

The family has experienced deteriorating health and been denied proper medical care while in detention, according to their lawyers. Earlier in April, El Gamal was hospitalised due to a medical emergency related to an untreated growth on her chest, they said.

Immigration rights groups have noted that it is typically illegal to detain children for extended periods of time.

In a statement earlier this week, US Senator Dick Durbin, a Democrat, said the Trump administration’s motives would be clear if they sought to re-detain the family despite the judge’s order to release them.

“If, despite the judge’s recommendation, the Department of Homeland Security still objects to the release of an innocent woman and her five children, we know exactly why that is the case,” Durbin said.

“It is not because they present any danger to the community or a flight risk. It is because they are immigrants – Arab Muslim immigrants at that.”

Judge had previously blocked move to end temporary legal status for those who entered US via Biden-era application.

The administration of President Donald Trump plans to again end the temporary legal status of hundreds of thousands of people who applied for asylum in the United States via the CBP One app.

The plan was detailed in a court filing in Boston, Massachusetts, and comes after a judge ruled that Trump’s earlier effort to terminate the legal status of those individuals was unlawful.

Under US President Joe Biden, individuals who registered for an appointment with US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) were preliminarily vetted and granted temporary legal status in the US as their asylum cases were adjudicated.

About 900,000 people were granted so-called humanitarian parole under the programme.

But in April of last year, just months after Trump took office for a second term, many of those individuals received emails saying their status had been terminated.

The message told its recipients it was “time for you to leave the United States”.

Federal Judge Allison Burroughs subsequently ruled that the Department of Homeland Security did not follow the proper procedures in terminating the legal status immigration status of CBP One users.

The US Department of Justice, in the new filings, told Burroughs that the Trump administration was complying with ⁠her order.

However, the department said the administration would begin issuing new parole termination notices, pursuant to a Tuesday memo from CBP’s head, Rodney Scott.

The memo is not public, but according to the Justice Department, Scott provided ‌an explanation for why, in his opinion, “parole is no longer appropriate for those aliens”.

Lawyers for Democracy Forward and Massachusetts Law Reform Institute, which represent the individuals whose status faces termination, urged Burroughs in a subsequent filing to prevent what they called a “deliberate attempt to evade compliance with the court’s order”.

The next hearing was set for May 6.

During his second term, Trump has pursued a hardline immigration policy that has included staunching nearly all asylum claims at the southern border.

Shortly after taking office, Trump’s officials also dissolved the CBP One app and relaunched it as CBP Home, a tool for self-deportation.

His administration has claimed there was an “invasion” at the border that constituted a “national emergency”, thereby allowing Trump to bypass legal requirements to allow individuals seeking asylum into the country.

Asylum, however, is a right enshrined both in domestic and international law, to protect people fleeing persecution on the basis of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group.

Separately, on Friday, a federal appeals court ruled against the Trump administration’s ban on asylum at the southern US border, potentially clearing the way for applications to once again be processed.

The administration is expected to appeal the decision.

Judges say Trump’s order for swift removal at the border ‘cast aside federal laws affording’ right to seek asylum.

An appeals court has ruled that President Donald Trump’s ban on asylum applications in the United States is unlawful, dealing a setback to the administration’s immigration crackdown.

In a decision released on Friday, a three-judge panel from the US Court of Appeals in Washington, DC, found that existing laws — namely the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) — give people the right to apply for asylum at the border.

Trump had issued the asylum ban in a proclamation on January 20, 2025, on the first day of his second term.

But the appeals court questioned whether suspending asylum unilaterally was within the president’s power.

“Congress did not intend to grant the Executive the expansive removal authority it asserts,” the ruling said.

“The Proclamation and Guidance are thus unlawful to the extent that they circumvent the INA’s removal procedures and cast aside federal laws affording individuals the right to apply and be considered for asylum or withholding of removal protections.”

The decision validated a ruling by a lower court. While the judges blocked Trump’s order, it is unclear what its immediate impact will be. Already, the White House has signalled it plans to appeal.

Trump made immigration a major pillar of his 2024 re-election campaign, pledging to repel what he describes as an “invasion” of migrants by shutting down the southern border of the US.

Asylum in the US can be granted to people facing “persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group”. Such protections have been recognised as a fundamental human right under international law.

But unauthorised border crossings reached record levels during the administration of President Joe Biden, which had itself imposed asylum restrictions.

Millions of migrants — many suffering from gang violence and political persecution in Central and South America — have claimed asylum upon reaching the US.

Nearly 945,000 filed for asylum in 2023, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

In his January 2025 decree, Trump suspended “the physical entry of aliens involved in an invasion into the United States across the southern border”.

The proclamation was quickly challenged in court, as other measures in Trump’s immigration crackdown have been.

But the appeals court panel concluded that the INA does not authorise the president to remove the plaintiffs under “procedures of his own making”.

Nor does it allow him to suspend the plaintiffs’ right to apply for asylum or curtail procedures for adjudicating claims of torture and persecution.

“The power by proclamation to temporarily suspend the entry of specified foreign individuals into the United States does not contain implicit authority to override the INA’s mandatory process to summarily remove foreign individuals,” wrote Judge J Michelle Childs, a Biden appointee.

The Trump administration will likely appeal the ruling to the full appellate court and subsequently to the Supreme Court.

The White House stressed after the court’s decision that banning asylum is part of Trump’s constitutional powers as commander-in-chief.

“We have liberal judges across the country who are acting against this president for political purposes. They are not acting as true litigators of the law. They are looking at these cases from a political lens,” White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters.

India’s Foreign Ministry says comments by US radio host Michael Savage, circulated by Trump, are ‘uninformed’.

Comments shared by United States President Donald Trump referring to India as a “hellhole” were “in poor taste” and at odds with the countries’ relationship, an Indian official has said.

Trump did not make the remark himself, but reposted it without comment on his Truth Social account on Thursday. The statement came from conservative radio host Michael Savage.

Criticising US birthright citizenship – which Trump has sought to restrict – Savage said, “A baby here becomes an instant citizen, and then they bring the entire family in from China or India or some other hellhole on the planet.”

Reacting late on Thursday, India’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said the remark was “obviously uninformed, inappropriate and in poor taste”.

The comments “certainly do not ⁠reflect the reality of the India-US relationship, which has long been based on mutual respect and shared interests”, Jaiswal added.

The US Embassy in New Delhi said, “The president has said ‘India is a great country with a very good friend of mine at the top’.”

China’s Foreign Ministry did not immediately comment on the matter.

‘Hurts every Indian’

India’s main opposition Congress party called the “hellhole” remark “extremely insulting and anti-India. It hurts every Indian”.

“Prime Minister ⁠Narendra Modi should take up this matter with the US President ⁠and register a strong objection,” the party said on X.

Indian government data shows nearly 5.5 million people of Indian origin live in the US. Indian Americans and Chinese Americans are the biggest groups of Asian origin in the US.

Savage’s comment, shared by Trump, continued: “There’s almost no loyalty to this country amongst the immigrant class coming in today, ‌which was not always the case. No, they’re not like the European Americans of today and their ancestors.”

Trump and Modi enjoyed ‌warm ties during Trump’s first term, but relations cooled after India was hit last year with some of the highest US tariffs, many of which were rolled back this year.

India and the US are ‌now ‌working on a trade deal aimed at preventing any renewed tariff increases and boosting sales to each other.

Trump has repeatedly used insulting language to refer to foreign nations and immigrant communities, including recently calling Somali immigrants “garbage”.

In 2018, Trump made global headlines for referring to El Salvador, Haiti and African nations as “s**thole countries”.

Rights advocates have accused the Trump administration of using third-country deportations to intimidate asylum seekers and migrants.

Fifteen South American migrants and asylum seekers recently deported from the United States to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) say they are facing pressure to return to their countries of origin, despite concerns for their safety.

Women from Colombia, Peru and Ecuador told the Reuters news agency that, since being deported to the Central African nation last week, they have been given no credible options other than going back to their home countries.

“We feel pressured to agree to go back to our country, regardless of the risks,” a 29-year-old Colombian woman, who asked to remain anonymous out of fear of reprisals, told Reuters.

The group arrived in the DRC last week as part of a controversial third-country agreement with the administration of US President Donald Trump.

Since returning to the presidency for a second term, Trump has implemented hardline measures to restrict immigration to the US and expel immigrants already in the country, some of whom have legal status.

Among the 15 South Americans who were deported to the DRC, some say they had sought asylum — a legal immigration process — in the US after fleeing persecution in their home countries.

The 29-year-old woman, for example, wrote in her asylum application in January 2024 that she left Colombia after being kidnapped and tortured by an armed group, as well as suffering abuse at the hands of her ex-husband, who was a police officer.

A US immigration judge ruled in May 2025 that she was more likely than not to be tortured if she was sent home, according to court records reviewed by Reuters.

The AFP news agency also reported that a 30-year-old Colombian woman named Gabriela only learned that she was being sent to the DRC a day before last week’s flight. During a 27-hour trip, the hands and feet of the deportees were shackled.

“I didn’t want to go to Congo,” she told AFP. “I’m scared; I don’t know the language.”

Immigration advocates have said that third-country deportations are an effort to intimidate migrants and asylum seekers into agreeing to leave the US.

Such removals involve sending immigrants to places with which they have no familiarity. Many, including the DRC, are known for human rights concerns or are sites of active conflict.

“The goal is clear: Put people in a place so unfamiliar that they give up and agree to return home, despite the immense risk they face there,” said Alma David, a US-based lawyer representing one of the asylum seekers in the DRC.

More than four in every 10 deaths and disappearances occurred on sea routes to Europe, the UN agency says.

Nearly 8,000 people died or disappeared on migration routes last year, with sea routes to Europe the most deadly, according to the United Nations.

The UN’s International Organization for Migration said that many of the victims were lost in “invisible shipwrecks,” as it released new figures in a report on Tuesday.

“These figures bear witness to our collective failure to prevent these tragedies,” Maria Moita, who directs the UN agency’s humanitarian and response department, told a news conference.

The figure of 7,904 people that the UN counted as died or missing in 2025 constituted a fall from the all-time high of 9,197 in 2024, the IOM said in its report. However, it added that the drop was partly due to 1,500 suspected cases that went unverified due to aid cuts.

Total deaths since 2014 exceed 82,000, with about 340,000 family members estimated to have been directly affected.

Shifting routes

More than four in every 10 deaths and disappearances occurred on sea routes to Europe, the IOM reports.

“In Europe, overall arrivals declined, but the profile of movements changed, with Bangladeshi nationals becoming the largest group arriving while Syrian arrivals fell following political and policy shifts,” the report reads.

Many cases were so-called “invisible shipwrecks” where entire boats are lost at sea and never found.

The West African route northwards accounted for 1,200 deaths, while Asia reported a record number of deaths, including hundreds of Rohingya refugees fleeing violence in Myanmar or misery in crowded refugee camps in Bangladesh.

The organisation stressed that the data showed migration routes “are shifting rather than easing, with risks remaining high along increasingly dangerous journeys”.

“Routes are shifting in response to conflict, climate pressures and policy changes, but the risks are still very real,” said IOM Director General Amy Pope.

“Behind these numbers are people taking dangerous journeys and families left waiting for news that may never come,” she added.

“Data is critical to understanding these routes and designing interventions that can reduce risks, save lives and promote safer migration pathways.”

Morbi, India – For seven years, Pradeep Kumar would walk into the ceramics factory in western India at 9am, load raw materials – clay, quartz and sand – into the kiln, and spend the day around the heat and dust of the furnaces.

He handled the clay at different stages, sometimes feeding it into machines, sometimes moving semi-processed pieces towards firing. The work was repetitive and demanding, with no protective gear, such as gloves and masks, against the high temperatures.

“It would be very challenging in the summers since the heat would be at its peak,” he told Al Jazeera.

But on March 15, he lost his job – not because of anything he or the company behind his factory had done, but because the United States and Israel attacked Iran, triggering another war in the Middle East and a global fuel crisis.

Barely two weeks after the war began, the ceramics company where he worked shut down due to a shortage of propane and natural gas. The company, in Morbi in Gujarat state – like all of its peers in the ceramics industry – depends on these critical ingredients.

Morbi is the centre of India’s ceramics industry that employs more than 400,000 people. More than half of these workers, like Kumar, are migrants from poorer Indian states like Uttar Pradesh and Bihar.

Five days after Kumar lost his job, the 29-year-old took his wife and their three children back to their home in Uttar Pradesh’s Hardoi district.

“I am here until every other migrant worker who came back home with us goes back,” he told Al Jazeera.

“We don’t want to suffer like dogs, like we did during the COVID-19 pandemic,” he added, referring to the 2020 and 2021 exodus of migrant workers from India’s more industrialised western states to the poorer east, with millions of starving families, including children, walking on foot for days and sometimes weeks to reach their homes amid a coronavirus lockdown.

About 450 of 600 companies shut

With more than 600 companies, Morbi produces about 80 percent of India’s ceramics in the form of tiles, toilets, bathtubs and wash basins. But at least 450 of those companies have been forced to shut down as a standoff on the Strait of Hormuz, a lifeline for India’s gas imports, continues.

Meanwhile, the war continues, with the US on Sunday capturing an Iranian cargo vessel, even as Washington says it is willing to hold another round of talks with Tehran in Pakistan to reach a deal. Tehran has refused to commit to peace talks after its ship was seized.

The developments came as a fragile ceasefire agreed by Iran and the US after a month of fighting expires on Wednesday. But a re-escalation in hostilities has seen Iran shutting down Hormuz for traffic, disrupting global fuel supplies and raising oil prices.

“All manufacturing units in Morbi rely on propane and natural gas to fire kilns at high temperatures. While propane is supplied by private companies, natural gas is provided by the state to those with connections. Around 60 percent of manufacturers use propane because it is comparatively cheaper,” Siddharth Bopaliya, a 27-year-old third-generation manufacturer and trader in Morbi, told Al Jazeera.

Manoj Arvadiya, president of the Morbi Ceramic Manufacturers Association, said they had shut down the units till April 15, hoping that the Middle East crisis would be resolved by then.

“But even today, only around 100 units have opened, and most have still not begun the manufacturing process. For at least another 15 days, it is likely to remain the same,” he told Al Jazeera.

Arvadiya said the closure has impacted 200,000 workers, with more than a quarter of them forced to go back to their homes in other states.

India’s ceramic industry is valued at $6bn.

“About 25 percent of Morbi’s ceramics are exported to countries in the Middle East, Africa and Europe, with a net worth of $1.5bn. But exports are now delayed and, in some cases, completely halted, especially to Middle Eastern countries, due to the production slowdown over the past month,” Arvadiya told Al Jazeera.

Factories that rely on propane remain shut in Morbi. Though natural gas is mostly available, many units have not made the switch yet, as new connections are being priced at 93 rupees a kilo, while existing users receive it at about 70 rupees.

Khushiram Sapariya, a manufacturer of washbasins who relies on propane, said he will wait this month before deciding on reopening his factory.

“Because then I have to call hundreds of staff who have gone to their homes, and I want to be sure before taking their responsibility,” he said.

Returned home with ‘Morbi disease’

Among the workers who left Morbi last month is 27-year-old Ankur Singh.

“The shutdown of my company did not send me back alone, but with a Morbi disease – silicosis. I would often have fever and cough but kept ignoring it, until I came back to my hometown near Patna in Bihar and found after a check-up that it was silicosis,” he told Al Jazeera.

Silicosis is an incurable lung disease caused by inhalation of silica dust found in rock, sand, quartz and other building materials. One of the oldest occupational diseases in the world, it kills thousands of people every year.

Gujarat-based labour rights activist Chirag Chavda says the disease is “widespread in Morbi because workers are routinely exposed to fine silica dust generated during ceramic production”.

“Even those not directly involved in moulding or kiln work often inhale the particles due to poor ventilation and prolonged exposure across factory spaces,” he told Al Jazeera.

Chavda said most ceramic companies do not follow the government regulations regarding the safety of workers.

Harish Zala, 40, had worked in different ceramic companies in Morbi for two decades before he got silicosis two years ago. He said he received no help from his employer, who allegedly abused and threatened his father when he visited the company after the diagnosis.

“Every year, at least one labourer dies of silicosis in each company, while several get detected for silicosis,” Zala told Al Jazeera. “Some like me get lucky and survive, but have no choice but to quit the job immediately.”

Zala said many companies do not provide the workers with written proof of employment, such as appointment letters, salary slips, or identity cards. “This is done so that if a worker later demands labour rights or legal entitlements, they have no concrete evidence to prove that they were employed by the company.”

Chirag added that such workers are also denied social security under various Indian laws regarding salaries or pension funds, since doing so would establish proof of employment.

“As a result, even after working for years, workers are deprived of their labour rights due to a lack of evidence. This leaves employers with little to no legal accountability,” he said.

In Morbi, there are also migrants like Sushma Devi, 56, who did not go back to her home in West Bengal because the tile company her son works at has promised to continue giving them shelter and food as it waits for manufacturing to resume.

“I am here with a few more people because we did not want to spend money on travelling. Here, at least our ration is sorted,” she said as she walked with a bundle of dry twigs, wood and discarded plywood for the cooking.

“We step out to collect these every day to be able to cook our two-time meal,” said Devi. “I hope the kilns and manufacturing resume soon, but I also hope they don’t stop giving us rice and potatoes even if the kilns don’t start running anytime soon.”

Devi’s husband, Debendar, and their son Ankit live in a one-room set given to them by their company. The family has access to a common toilet for 10 families on one floor.

Kumar, meanwhile, is running out of his meagre savings and fears he could fall into a debt trap.

“Initially, we ate from whatever we had saved. But the house needed repair and we had to borrow 20,000 rupees ($214) from a relative, which we have no idea when or how we will repay,” he said, looking at the reworked roof of his brick house in Hardoi.

KINSHASA, Congo — Around 15 people deported from the United States landed in Congo’s capital Kinshasa early Friday, one of their lawyers told the Associated Press.

It was the latest example of the Trump administration using agreements with African countries to accelerate migrant removals that have raised questions about respect for the migrants’ rights.

An official at the Congolese migration agency confirmed the arrivals but didn’t provide details.

The deportees are all from Latin America and the Congolese government plans to keep them in the country for a short period, said U.S. attorney Alma David, who represents one of the deportees. She has been speaking with her client since arriving in Kinshasa.

All the deportees are believed to have legal protection from U.S. judges shielding them against being returned to their home countries, David said. The deportees are believed to be staying at a hotel in Kinshasa.

The International Organization for Migration, a United Nations-affiliated agency, will be involved to offer “assisted voluntary return,” David told AP.

“The fact that the focus is on offering them ‘voluntary’ return to their home country when they spent months in immigration detention in the U.S. fighting hard to not have to go home is very alarming,” she said.

An International Organization for Migration spokesperson said the organization was providing humanitarian assistance to the deportees at the request of the Congolese government. It said it may also offer assisted voluntary return, which is “strictly voluntary and based on free, prior and informed consent.”

Congo’s Ministry of Communications said in a statement earlier this month that it will receive some migrants as part of a new deal under the Trump administration’s third-country program.

It described the arrangement as a “temporary” one that reflects Congo’s “commitment to human dignity and international solidarity.” It would come with zero costs to the government with the U.S. covering the needed logistics, it said.

The statement said no automatic transfer of the deportees is planned, adding: “Each situation will be subject to individual review in accordance with the laws of the Republic and national security requirements.”

The U.S. has struck such third-country deportation deals with at least seven other African nations, many of them among countries hit hardest by the Trump administration’s policies restricting trade, aid and migration.

The Trump administration has spent at least $40 million to deport about 300 migrants to countries other than their own, according to a report released recently by the Democratic staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Lawyers and activists have raised questions over the nature of the deals with countries in Africa and elsewhere. Several of the African nations that have signed such deals have notoriously repressive governments and poor human rights records — including Eswatini, South Sudan and Equatorial Guinea.

Kamale and Banchereau write for the Associated Press. Banchereau reported from Dakar, Senegal. AP writer Saleh Mwanamilongo in Bonn, Germany contributed to this report.

The State Department in the United States has announced it is restricting visas for “individuals from countries in our hemisphere who support our adversaries in undermining America’s interests in our region”.

Thursday’s statement underlined that 26 individuals had already seen their visas stripped as part of the policy.

The State Department’s stance comes as President Donald Trump seeks to expand US influence across the Western Hemisphere, as part of a platform he calls the “Donroe Doctrine”, a riff on the 19th-century Monroe Doctrine.

Since taking office for a second term, Trump has taken an aggressive stance towards stopping drug trafficking across the Americas, threatening economic penalties and military action for noncompliance.

He has also sought to check China’s growing sway over the region, as an increasing number of Latin American countries tighten their bonds with the Asian superpower.

The State Department explained that the expanded visa restrictions would penalise those who “knowingly direct, authorise, fund, or provide significant support to” US adversaries in the Western Hemisphere.

“Activities include but are not limited to: enabling adversarial powers to acquire or control key assets and strategic resources in our hemisphere; destabilising regional security efforts; undermining American economic interests; and conducting influence operations designed to undermine the sovereignty and stability of nations in our region,” the statement added.

The language was vague, never mentioning China or the campaign against drug-trafficking cartels.

But it continues a trend under the Trump administration to revoke visas from foreign critics and political opponents.

Last year, for instance, the administration sought to revoke visas for pro-Palestine protesters, claiming their presence could have foreign policy consequences for the US.

More recently, the administration has terminated the immigration visas for at least seven individuals with familial ties to the Iranian government or individuals connected to the 1979 Iranian revolution.

Revoking visas

The statement on Thursday did not identify the 26 individuals facing visa restrictions as part of the expanded policy.

But it cited the same authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act that the Trump administration has used to attempt to deport pro-Palestine student protesters last year.

Under the law, the entry of foreign nationals can be restricted when the secretary of state has reason to believe they pose “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States”.

While the administration has abandoned deportation efforts against some of the targeted individuals, at least two, Mahmoud Khalil and Badar Khan Suri, continue to face expulsion.

More recently, the administration has terminated the immigration visas for at least seven individuals with familial ties to the Iranian government or individuals connected to the 1979 Iranian revolution.

Already, some figures in Latin America have seen their visas revoked over political disagreements with the US.

In July, Brazilian officials involved in the prosecution of former right-wing President Jair Bolsonaro saw their US visas withdrawn. They included Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, a frequent target of right-wing ire.

Then, in September, the Trump administration stripped Colombian President Gustavo Petro of his visa after he made an appearance at the UN General Assembly that was critical of US policy.

The State Department, at the time, denounced Petro for “reckless and incendiary actions”. He was later invited to visit the White House in February, as part of a detente with Trump.

Visa restrictions have been part of Trump’s larger policy to exert pressure on foreign groups and limit immigration into the US.

Earlier this year, the administration enacted immigrant visa bans on dozens of countries, citing both national security and alleged stresses on social services.

Trump has also sought to take a more militaristic approach towards Latin American governments it deems as adversarial, referring to the whole of the Western Hemisphere as the US’s “neighbourhood”.

In January, the US launched an attack on Venezuela that culminated in the abduction and imprisonment of Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro, and it has also initiated an ongoing fuel blockade against Cuba.

Some of Trump’s actions in the region have been deadly. The Venezuela attack left dozens of Cubans and Venezuelans killed. And since September, the Trump administration has conducted at least 51 lethal strikes on alleged drug-smuggling boats in the eastern Pacific Ocean and Caribbean Sea.

The death toll in that campaign has reached at least 177 people. Rights groups have decried the attacks as extrajudicial killings.

But the Trump administration has labelled multiple drug cartels as “foreign terrorist organisations” and has argued they are seeking to destabilise the US through the drug trade.

Kharkiv, Ukraine – Hushruzjon Salohidinov, 26, was working as a courier in Saint Petersburg, Russia’s second-largest city and President Vladimir Putin’s hometown.

But last year, the Tajik man and practising Muslim says he was arrested while picking up a parcel which police claimed contained money stolen from elderly women.

Salohidinov says he never interacted with the alleged criminals, but nevertheless spent nine months in the Kresty-2 pre-trial detention centre about 32km (20 miles) from the city, while a judge refused to start his trial because of the “weak evidence” against him.

But instead of releasing him after that, prison wardens threatened to place him in a cell with HIV-infected inmates who, they said, would gang-rape him – unless he “volunteered” to fight in Ukraine.

“They said, ‘Oh, you’ll put on a skirt now, you’ll be raped,’” Salohidinov, who has raven black hair and a messy full beard, told Al Jazeera at a centre for war prisoners in northeastern Ukraine, where he is now being held, having been captured in January this year by Ukrainian forces.

Using a carrot-and-stick tactic, the wardens also promised him a sign-up bonus of 2 million rubles ($26,200), a monthly salary of 200,000 rubles ($2,620) and an amnesty from all convictions.

So, in the autumn of 2025, Salohidinov signed up as he “saw no other way out”.

Officials in Kresty-2, St Petersburg’s prosecutors’ office and Russia’s Ministry of Defence did not respond to any of Al Jazeera’s requests for comment.

‘Catching migrants’

Salohidinov is just one of tens of thousands of labour migrants from Central Asia coerced by Russia to become soldiers as part of the Kremlin’s nationwide campaign, according to human rights groups, media reports and Russian officials.

Hochu Jit, a Ukrainian group that helps Russian soldiers surrender, has published verified lists of thousands of Central Asian soldiers like Salohidinov.

“They are literally sent to be killed, no one considers them soldiers that need to be saved,” the group wrote in a 2025 post on Telegram. These soldiers’ life expectancy on the front line is about four months. “Losses among them are catastrophic,” the group reported.

With its low birthrate and large oil wealth, Russia has for years been a magnet for millions of labour migrants from ex-Soviet Central Asia, especially Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan.

The campaign by the Kremlin to force Central Asians to fight in Ukraine dates back to 2023 – the year after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine – when police began rounding up anyone who didn’t look Slavic and charging them with real or imagined transgressions such as a lack of registration, expired or “fake” permits or blurred stamps on their documents. Sometimes, migrants are simply bused straight to conscription offices.

In 2025, Al Jazeera interviewed another Tajik man who said he had been detained with an expired work permit and was then tortured into “volunteering” while being subjected to countless xenophobic and Islamophobic slurs from his officers.

Migrants say they are abused, tortured and threatened with jail or having their entire families deported.

“The main way of recruiting as many migrants as possible is pressure on them with threats of deportation,” Alisher Ilkhamov, the Uzbekistan-born head of the London-based Central Asia Due Diligence think tank, told Al Jazeera.

Sometimes, migrants are simply duped.

Salohidinov said one serviceman in his squad was an Uzbek who “didn’t speak a word of Russian” and was fooled into “volunteering” while signing papers at a migration centre.

In their reports about “catching” migrants, officials frequently use derogatory terms about them, and also when they describe men who have obtained Russian passports but skipped registration at conscription offices. Since the Soviet era, such registration has been obligatory for all men and, since 2024, a newly naturalised Russian national can lose his citizenship if he fails to do it.

“We’ve caught 80,000 such Russian citizens, who don’t just want to go to the front line, they don’t even want to go to a conscription office,” chief prosecutor Alexander Bastrykin said in May 2025, referring to the migrants’ alleged patriotic sentiments.

He boasted that 20,000 Central Asians with Russian passports were herded to the front line in 2025.

The year before, he said 10,000 Central Asians had been sent to Ukraine.

Such remarks resonate with the Russian public that lives with “a high level of xenophobia in the stage of fear and helplessness,” Sergey Biziyukin, an exiled opposition activist from the western city of Ryazan, told Al Jazeera.

“For them, such phrases from Bastrykin are a form of sedative.”

What makes Central Asians easy targets is that they hail from police states, which depend on Moscow politically and economically, observers say.

“While the migrants are frightened into signing contracts, their motherland doesn’t really pay any attention,” Galiya Ibragimova, an Uzbekistan-born, Moldova-based regional expert, told Al Jazeera.

Despite hefty signup bonuses and relentless propaganda, the number of Russians who want to fight in Ukraine fell by at least one-fifth this year, and Moscow will strive to recruit more Central Asians, she said.

‘We’ll have our fingers broken’

After signing the contract and leaving his debit card with his sign-up bonus with his parents, Salohidinov was sent to the western city of Voronezh for three weeks of training that did little to prepare him for the war.

“We just kept running back and forth with guns,” he said.

Their drill sergeants, he says, told the conscripts that the standard-issue flak jackets, helmets, boots and flashlights were of subpar quality and urged them to pitch in a million rubles ($13,100) each for “better” gear.

The incident corroborates reports on dozens of similar cases in Russian military units.

Salohidinov was ordered to work in a kitchen – and was verbally abused and beaten for the slightest transgression.

Of 28 men in his unit, 21 were Muslims – but their ethnic Russian officers ignored their pleas not to have pork in meals, repeating a decades-old practice of ignoring religion-related dietary restrictions dating back to the Soviet army.

The commanders demonised Ukrainians, telling them “that if we surrender, we’d be tortured, have our fingers broken, maimed, get [construction] foam up our a**, have our teeth yanked out one by one, have our arms broken”, Salohidinov says.

In early January this year, the conscripts were bused to the Russia-occupied Ukrainian region of Luhansk.

Salohidinov says he was tired, frightened and disoriented – Ukrainian drones were “always” above them and a grenade explosion nearby damaged his left eardrum.

‘Glad I got captured’

On the fourth day of his service, Salohidinov was ordered to run beyond Ukrainian positions as part of Russia’s new tactic to send two or three servicemen to infiltrate the porous front line.

The mission was suicidal because the terrain was open, dotted with landmines and the bodies of dead Russian soldiers, while Ukrainians were firing machineguns and flew drones above them.

“I ran and ran and saw we were being shot at,” he said. “Me and my commander decided to surrender voluntarily instead of dying for nothing.”

They detached their assault rifles’ magazines, raised their hands and yelled they were surrendering.

What followed was “a calm feeling, beautiful”, he said. “They fed us, let us have a smoke, gave us food and water and even cake.”

Now, Salohidinov hopes to return to Tajikistan and panics at the thought of being made part of a prisoner swap – these have taken place several times each year – and returning to Russia because he would be sent back to the front line.

Tajikistan and other Central Asian nations have never endorsed Russia’s war in Ukraine, but nor have they openly criticised it.

In August 2025, Tajikistan’s Prosecutor General Habibullo Vohidzoda declared that no Tajik national would be charged for fighting in Ukraine.

So, what Salohidinov needs right now is an extradition request.

“I’m even glad that I got captured, because I’m not fighting anyone now, not risking anything,” he said. “I’ll even say thanks to Ukraine for taking me prisoner.”

The Tajik embassy in Kyiv did not respond to Al Jazeera’s request for comment.