The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Trump Administration Drops Effort to Deport Chinese Dissident Guan Heng to Uganda
This is likely the result of the massive public outcry supporting Guan. But Trump continues to deport other dissidents and victims of persecution back to their oppressors.

I recently wrote about the Trump Administration's reprehensible effort to deport courageous Chinese dissident Guan Heng to Uganda, which country would likely transfer him back to China, where he would face imprisonment or death. So I am happy to be able to say that the administration has now apparently dropped this plan:
The U.S. on Friday dropped its effort to deport a Chinese national who helped document Beijing's alleged abuses against Uyghur Muslims to Uganda, the man's lawyer told Reuters.
Guan Heng, a Chinese citizen-journalist, fled the U.S. in 2021 after taking video of alleged concentration camps in China's western Xinjiang region. He released the video after arriving in the U.S., where he applied for asylum….
"We just got a letter informing that DHS (Department of Homeland Security) will not seek to remove Mr. Guan to Uganda," his lawyer Allen Chen told Reuters.
Chen said it was not clear if Washington would continue to pursue Guan's removal, either to China or another country, but said sending such a "high-profile dissident" back to China would be unlikely.
Under Department of Homeland Security (DHS) policies, migrants may be deported to third countries if immigration authorities either have "credible" diplomatic assurances they will not be persecuted or tortured if sent there or have given the migrants as little as six hours of notice ahead of time that they are being sent to such a place.
Nonetheless, Chen said the withdrawal of the Uganda removal order was a positive development, adding that he expected Guan would have a bond hearing in coming weeks, though his asylum case could take several years.
As Guan's lawyer notes, the administration could still potentially try to deport him directly to China. But they are unlikely to do after having dropped the attempt at a "third country" deportation, which probably had a better chance of success.
This reversal is likely the result of the widespread outcry against the attempt to deport Guan. It's not likely that the administration suddenly had an epiphany about the legal issues involved (it was always obvious that Guan has a very strong case for asylum). Thus, this is a sign the administration is not immune to public resistance to its cruel and unjust deportation policies. Opponents should learn from this experience and keep up the pressure, and - where possible - increase it.
As noted in my previous post about Guan, the attempt to deport him is just part of a much broader policy of deporting dissidents and victims of persecution back to their oppressors:
Sadly, the effort to deport Guan is part of a broader pattern of Trump administration efforts to deport dissidents and victims of persecution back to the regimes that oppress them. These policies now include deporting Russian dissidents back to Vladimir Putin's brutal dictatorship, refugees who fled oppression in Cuba and Venezuela, Iranian Christians who fled persecution by that country's radical Islamist regime, and Afghans who fled the Taliban (including many who aided the US during the war). Such policies are obviously cruel and unjust. They are also strategically counterproductive.
A policy that essentially aids anti-American regimes in their persecution of dissidents undermines our position in the international war of ideas between these governments' ideologies and ours, and deters future would-be dissidents and allies from working against those governments or aiding us. This isn't making America Great Again. It's making us simultaneously evil and stupid.
Ideally, these other cruel deportation policies should be met with the same widespread condemnation as that which resulted in the administration's reversal on Guan Heng.
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
Failure to enforce the law damages society in each and every instance.
I'll side with the people who hid the Jews from the Nazis, thanks. Better idea! I have an ancestor who killed Nazis!
Do you have any Ancestors who owned Slaves?
I do not. Most arrived in the early 20th, with one branch around 1870.
Ahh, so if they'd arrived in the early 19th, or 18th, they would have, thanks.
Failing to offer and honor asylum is a failure to enforce the law.
Good! They never should have considered deporting him in the first place! They should now make the same decision with all the Afghans they're thinking about deporting.
Fix your own mess, mate.
Ok cool. Then any time there's ever something happening in the world that you don't like, please feel free to follow suit and not say anything critical at all. Because you can't say anything until all problems are solved in your own backyard.
Hey, you could even apply it to commenting on the politics of US states you don't live in. Don't talk about elections in New York unless everything is perfect where you live! It gets pretty crazy when you think about it!
I guess the only alternative is to actually address arguments that people make, instead of finding some loophole to dismiss them out of hand. But I know that's really hard for some people here.
I'm reminded of an American document:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
Joining the family of nations was not just about our own internal affairs. It had an international quality. As does welcoming or expelling new people into the United States.
The document ends with a reference to our right to independence, which entails "Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do." They have power to welcome and expel people.
They should do it with some degree of care. For instance, the racist policies of that day where only white people were naturalized was unjust. In the 21st Century, determining what is unjust is not just the role of any one nation. I think WWII clarified that some.
It's funny how that 'international quality' only applies to us while every other country in the world is allowed to do what they want.
You do not make any arguments other than 'Americans should be the kicking post of the world'.
If Australia had deported 2 Paki's 15 people at Bondi Beach would still be alive.
If we'd deported a certain non-student who was no longer eligible for a student visa in 2001, three Americans would still be alive.
Three, Three Thousand, oh well even 1 is a Tragedy.
Why are you continuing to make this up? What possible basis do you have for claiming he was living here after 2001? He was awarded a diversity lottery visa in 2017, which would've meant he was back living in Portugal at the time.
Just like all your speculation about being "booted for psych reasons" was completely fictional, so is everything else you write.
My bad, I thought you were talking about Moe-hammed Atta.
If all deportations are cruel, none are.
Ilya has cried "wolf" too many times.
Oh I see, you're ok with deporting someone to their certain death.
You might be going to hell, I just want to prepare you mentally and emotionally.
We'll send them all to Australia. You can put them on your remote desert island.
Take care of your own country and stop worrying about ours.
Courageous? more like Stupid.
Typo in original: He didn't flee the US, he fled to the US from China.
Technically speaking, he fled to Ecuador from China, then illegally made his way from Ecuador to the US for economic reasons.
Technically speaking, he fled to Ecuador from China, and then made his way to the U.S. for asylum.
Asylum from Ecuador? Mmm... No. He was perfectly safe in Ecuador and could've claimed asylum there if he wanted.
I am going to bet with a high degree of confidence that you — like me — have absolutely no idea what Ecuador's asylum laws are like.
Well, I actually do have an idea of what Ecuador's asylum laws are like. See, they have another famous person who got asylum there...Mr. Wikileaks, Julian Assange.
You might remember a little about them now.
Ha ha yeah, the Ecuadorians let the British come in and arrest him in 2019. I wonder why Guan Hen didn't want to continue his asylum with them?
Maybe don’t go snooping around sensitive areas in Communist Dictatorships, right up there with avoiding the Saudi Embassy when you’re an enema of the State
We give asylum to people who resist tyranny, not help the tyrants catch them. This is not a proud virtue signal.
There's a difference between resisting Tyranny and being Stupid. What he did was Stupid.
“You shall not oppress a sojourner. You know the heart of a sojourner, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt."
Exodus 23:9 (ESV)
I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me.
Matthew 25:35
Happy Holidays.
Jesus Wept (at that Stupid Comment)
"The U.S. on Friday dropped its effort to deport a Chinese national who helped document Beijing's alleged abuses against Uyghur Muslims to Uganda, the man's lawyer told Reuters."
[quote is from Reuters]
Reuters is a well-edited news agency. So I thought this sentence was noteworthy for its poor structure (IMO). Reading it, I think it's a reasonable interpretation that the man gave the documentation to Uganda, rather than to the United States. It would have been more clear if it said something like, ". . . dropped its efforts to deport [to Uganda] a Chinese national who . . . "
(Thank God for the internet--I'd be shouting at clouds otherwise.)
I suppose that's a reasonable interpretation if you don't read the rest of the article:
"His detention and threatened deportation to Uganda has stirred controversy, not least because he helped document abuses in China that the U.S. government during Trump's first term deemed "genocide."
His supporters and lawyer say Guan faced almost certain persecution if deported to Uganda. The East African country, where Beijing has considerable political and economic clout, this year entered into an agreement with the U.S. to take in nationals from third countries."
No one seems to know why he did not stay in Ecuador where it was safe.