El Salvador's bold offer: A game-changer in immigration and criminal justice policy?

El Salvador has entered into a controversial agreement with the United States to house violent criminals and accept deportees of any nationality, a move that has sparked praise from some and criticism from others. The unprecedented deal, announced by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Monday, has raised significant legal and ethical concerns, particularly regarding the potential deportation of incarcerated American citizens.

Rubio revealed the agreement following discussions with Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele during a diplomatic tour across Central America aimed at securing regional support for the Trump administration's stringent immigration policies. Under this arrangement, El Salvador will continue receiving its own nationals who have been deported from the U.S. Additionally, the country has agreed to accept deported criminals of any nationality, including members of notorious transnational gangs such as MS-13 and Tren de Aragua.

Perhaps the most shocking element of the agreement is Bukele's offer to incarcerate dangerous American criminals in El Salvador’s high-security prisons, including those with U.S. citizenship or legal residency. However, this aspect of the deal is expected to face intense legal challenges. According to Leti Volpp, an immigration law expert at UC Berkeley, "The U.S. is absolutely prohibited from deporting U.S. citizens, whether they are incarcerated or not."

Bukele confirmed the agreement in a social media post, stating that El Salvador is willing to take in only convicted criminals, including American citizens, in exchange for a fee. The country’s newly constructed Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT), a massive facility capable of holding 40,000 inmates, would house these individuals. According to Bukele, the fee would be minimal for the U.S. but would provide substantial financial support for El Salvador’s prison system.

The Salvadoran leader has gained both domestic and international recognition for his aggressive crackdown on gang violence. Since launching his security campaign in 2022, over 81,000 individuals have been incarcerated, leading to a dramatic reduction in crime rates. However, human rights organizations have condemned the harsh conditions within Salvadoran prisons, citing overcrowding, inadequate sanitation, and severe restrictions on due process.

While the Trump administration has lauded the agreement as a bold step toward strengthening national security, critics argue it represents a dangerous erosion of democratic norms and international law. Rights groups have strongly opposed the move, with the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) calling it "a sad day for America." LULAC’s National President, Roman Palomares, expressed concerns that non-criminal migrants would be treated like "cattle" and arbitrarily shuffled from one country to another.

Political analysts have also warned that this agreement may be a reflection of a broader authoritarian trend, with leaders engaging in transactional diplomacy that prioritizes political convenience over legal frameworks. Emerson College professor Mneesha Gellman characterized the proposal as "bizarre and unprecedented," suggesting it lacks any solid legal foundation and could violate multiple international laws governing migrant rights.

The deal aligns with the Trump administration's intensified immigration enforcement measures, which have mobilized federal agencies to arrest and detain undocumented immigrants while also stripping protections from migrants already residing in the U.S. Notably, the administration has been exploring "safe third country" agreements, which would require asylum seekers to apply for protection in a third country rather than the U.S.

In a parallel move, Venezuela has reportedly agreed to accept deported Venezuelan criminals, including gang members, marking a shift in its previously rigid stance. The U.S. has historically faced challenges repatriating Venezuelan nationals due to strained diplomatic relations with the Maduro government.

The agreement between the U.S. and El Salvador presents a unique case in international criminal justice cooperation, but it remains unclear whether it will withstand legal scrutiny. With mounting opposition from human rights groups, legal scholars, and political opponents, the deal may face significant hurdles before it can be implemented.

As the debate continues, the world watches closely to see whether this bold and controversial approach to crime and immigration enforcement will set a new precedent—or crumble under legal and ethical challenges.