The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Trump Forcibly Returns Russian Dissenters who Fled Putin
It's a new low in US refugee/asylum policy; simultaneouly unjust and counterproductive.

The London Times reports that the Trump Administration has been deporting Russian dissenters who fled Vladimir Putin's authoritarian regime, sending them back to Russia, and even apparently helping Russian authorities persecute them:
On August 27, less than a fortnight after President Trump's summit with Putin in Alaska, dozens of Russians were rounded up and deported. Among them was Artyom Vovchenko, 27, a deserter from the war in Ukraine. He is facing a prison sentence of up to decade or could be sent back to the front line.….
Although the deportation of Russians to Russia has accelerated under Trump, the policy began under his predecessor Joe Biden. According to Dmitry Valuev, 46, president of Russian America for Democracy in Russia, an organisation that supports political refugees, deportations under Biden were smaller in number.
He said Russian deportees on those flights avoided returning to Russia by begging for their passports during layovers in China and Morocco and buying flights to alternative destinations.
However, the US now appears to have enlisted the help of the Egyptian government to ensure the migrants are delivered back to Moscow.
The first mass deportation this year took place in June when 47 Russians were put on a flight to Egypt and returned to Russia via Cairo.
On August 27, between 30 and 60 people were sent to Russia on the same route. Some tried to get off the plane in Cairo but were restrained by Egyptian officials and forced to board the onward flight to Moscow, according to Valuev. He believes that US immigration authorities are now working with the Russian FSB [Putin's secret police agency].
I think the June deportation and the August deportation were co-ordinated with the Russian authorities," he said. "The middlemen in the US immigration system and the Russian FSB could not talk to each other directly without approval from higher up. Someone gave that approval."
When the dissidents arrived in Russia, the Russian authorities were given documents relating to their asylum applications in the US. Those dossiers, outlining their political beliefs and criticisms of Putin, could be used to prosecute them back home, campaigners believe.
Khodorkovsky said the treatment of Russian dissidents by the US posed the question of "whether the current administration is prepared to act as a leader of the democratic world".
He said the deportations were particularly troubling given the Russians were "accompanied by documents that can help fabricate criminal cases against them, and all of this at the expense of the American taxpayer".
"This is no longer about democratic leadership — it's about the risk of being seen as an ally of dictators," he said.
As the article notes, abusive treatment of Russian dissenters fleeing Putin occurred under Biden, as well. And I condemned it at the time. But Trump's expansion of the deportations and collaboration with the Russian government is worse.
Beginning soon after Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, I have argued the US and other Western nations should open their doors to Russians fleeing Putin's increasingly repressive regime. It's the right thing to do for both moral and strategic reasons. Morally, it's wrong to bar people fleeing brutal repression and, in some cases, seeking to avoid being drafted into an unjust war of aggression. Strategically, we benefit from depriving Putin of valuable manpower and from enabling the Russian refugees to contribute to our economy and scientific innovation (Russian immigrants and refugees are disproportionate contributors to the latter). I have also advocated for Ukrainian refugees, whose interest I cannot easily be accused of neglecting.
Of course, under Trump, policy often seems to be driven by a desire to kowtow to Putin and imitate his authoritarian methods. From that standpoint, deporting dissenters back to the regime that oppresses them makes a kind of sense. Just not the kind that any minimally decent person should ever support.
UPDATE: I suppose this is of a piece with Trump's efforts to deport refugees from other oppressive anti-American regimes, such as those who fled Cuba and Venezuela, Iranian Christians, and Afghans who fled the Taliban.(including many who aided the US during the war). But, in one sense, this is even worse, in that US authorities are directly collaborating with the dictatorship in question.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Ilya's pearls will never be unclutched
My god, your soul has left you and your body is just a shell.
I’m waiting to find out what the full story is.
You mean, like what did Putin promise Trump in exchange?
I actually don’t think this is a low. Mr. Trump made it perfectly clear before he became #47 that he regarded constitutional democracies, rule of law, free trade, and orher such nonsense as terrrible forms of national weakness. He made it eminently clear that he thought only autocratic dictatorial rule by a truly great man such as Putin, Kim-Jong Un, or himself can enable a colonizing, mercantilist empire to be great. To facilitate this, he promised to get out of NATO and other alliances with weak, second-rate leaders and instead ally with Putin and other great men.
It’s not so often that he’s kept his word. But he absolutely has here. It’s far from the lowest thing he’s done.
It's a new low in US refugee/asylum policy; simultaneouly unjust and counterproductive.
Oh no !
Although the deportation of Russians to Russia has accelerated under Trump, the policy began under his predecessor Joe Biden
Oh – not so new then.
Nor btw is it counterproductive. It sends a very clear message. Flee somewhere else.
Because I’m a bit of a liberal on asylum, I’d accept the genuine asylum seekers from Russia who paddled their way across the Bering Strait. Otherwise not so much. Flee somewhere else.
Oh – not so new then.
Ilya didn't say it was a new policy. He said it was a new low in acting on the policy.
Flee somewhere else.
OK, Lee. But suppose they've fled here and you want to deport them.
But why back to Russia, and why give Russia their asylum applications that rate to get them in trouble when they get to Moscow?
Because sending them back to Russia, giving Russia their asylum applications and publicizing widely what we did deters future Russians from fleeing to the United States. They'll pick somewhere else, which is what we want them to do. We're sending the message that America just isn't safe for such refugees, they should pick somewhere else. I hope they enjoy France.
No; only evil people want that. Actual patriotic Americans want the U.S. to be a haven for refugees.
……who have not already turned down several other refuges on their way here.
No, we really don't. Immigration is about what do you bring to the table, not what can we do for you. Do you have some sort of in demand skill? Do you have investment capital? Do you have a business idea that will employ Americans? If not, we really have no need for you. This is 2025, not 1925. There is no shortage of people or labor here. Call it what you want, we should be extremely selective as to whom we admit and no one who doesn't directly benefit those of us already legally here should ever be admitted.
. . . and no one who doesn't directly benefit those of us already legally here should ever be admitted.
More question begging. The questions are:
1. Who decides?
2. On what legal basis do questions like those get decided?
The answer to neither question is: Currentsitguy.
We're not talking about immigration. We're talking about refugees.
As for immigration: since I am not a communist I do not think that the central government is capable of determining what skills and capital the country needs. That's what the market is for.
No, we do not want to be a dumping ground for foreign criminals.
Because deportation means return to country of origin? If they didn't like that choice, why didn't they go somewhere else sooner instead of waiting for a free ticket they didn't want?
Did you support taking Cubans who didn’t lift a finger to fight Castro??
If they're criollos, yes. If they're mestizos or zambos, no.
That goes directly to how well they are likely to assimilate.
But why do they get asylum if they allowed a clown take over their island. Barely any Cubans died in the revolution because they just left instead of fighting.
Really? White Cubans yes but no blacks or browns. Is there a competition for how racist someone can be and still post a comment here? If so, you win.
Why do you think racial diversity is good? Please show your work.
Along those lines, I suggest we remodel the Statue of Liberty, so that instead of holding up a torch, she just gives the finger.
Trump is a Russian asset.
But Melania is a Ukrainian agent. Hmmmm
Misplaced
It's like the old saying at last call. "You don't have to go home, but you can't stay here".
Except, as mentioned above, they do have to "go home"...
One named source in the entire London Times article, Mikhail Khodorkovsky. No corroboration of anything he said. This is Ilya's "
evidence." Would it hold up under cross examination. Of course we will never know.
I am just hoping Somin can be sent back to Russia.
Come on, shit for brains. You can come up with more insulting trolling than that. We've seen your posting history, and we know you're up to the challenge. Really let Ilya have it. Your above post is a pale copy of the usual Roger S diarrhea.
I'm just glad Phyllis isn't here to see...
... well, anything.
It's almost as if there's a reason why international law requires that asylum claims must be assessed individually...
I confess that the immigration debates have turned my thinking nearly 180 degrees. Not that many years ago, I insisted that immigration ought to be regulated to match labor demand—meaning that absent excess labor demand, foreign immigration ought to be foreclosed.
Now, after years watching pro-racist crap, and pro-despotism crap, I have become practically an open-borders advocate to match Somin. Not quite, maybe, but getting there. I confess. It's all about wanting to stay as far clear of immigration-associated crap as I can.
Is it bad for America and Americans?
Then Lathrop is for it.
Because of course he is.
Surprising absolutely nobody.
Immigration is good for America.