As Western powers ramp up efforts to deport so-called “illegal” migrants, a troubling pattern is emerging Africa, long burdened by the legacy of colonization, is now becoming the preferred dumping ground for those no longer welcome in rich countries.
The latest revelation? The United States has quietly signed a deal to send up to 250 migrants to Rwanda, a nation that had already been thrust into the global spotlight when the UK, under Boris Johnson’s leadership, tried to implement a similar scheme. That plan was eventually scrapped by Labour’s Keir Starmer, but the idea has not died. Now, under President Donald Trump’s policy revival, the U.S. is not just copying the blueprint, it’s exporting it.
What’s being offered in return? Cash.
A tidy package of financial aid, accommodation support, and vague promises of workforce training are bundled as justification. But to many Africans, this looks less like partnership and more like a new face of transactional neo-colonialism, where human beings are bartered across continents, and African soil is treated as a holding space for Western failures.
The Question No One Dares Ask: Why Do African Countries Accept This?
Is it desperation? Diplomacy? Or something deeper?
In Rwanda’s case, the government insists that its experience with displacement gives it moral authority: “Nearly every Rwandan family has experienced the hardships of displacement,” government spokesperson Yolande Makolo said. “Our societal values are founded on reintegration and rehabilitation.”
That may be true. But there’s a glaring contradiction.
If Rwandans know displacement so intimately, should they really be in the business of accepting those who are displaced by force not war, not famine, but deportation by governments that refuse to take responsibility for their broken immigration systems?
And what about South Sudan and Eswatini, two other African nations now quietly partnering with Trump’s deportation scheme? What do they gain except reputational risk and a potential social burden?
Mindset or Money?
Africa has long been seen as the continent with its hands out, always receiving, rarely choosing. But today’s deals reveal something more painful: a psychological residue of colonization. The belief that accepting foreign funds no matter the human cost is progress. That if the West is offering, it must be good.
It’s the same logic that once justified land grabs, missionary interference, and exploitative mining contracts. Only now, instead of gold or rubber, the exports are people, brown, displaced, and undesirable.
A Fair Deal — or Just another Disguise?
Supporters of the deal argue that it offers a fresh start for migrants, with promises of jobs and healthcare. But who is monitoring these promises? Who ensures that migrants sent thousands of miles away often against their will can integrate, thrive, or even stay safe?
If the West cannot humanely house and process those seeking refuge, should it really be allowed to outsource the problem to countries still healing from the scars of their own conflicts?
Africa Is Not a Landfill for Failed Western Policies
Whether wrapped in financial aid or moral rhetoric, these deals send a dangerous message: African lives and African land are negotiable.
It is time for the continent’s leaders to rethink the cost of these arrangements. Not just in dollars but in dignity. Because if we continue to accept such deals without question, what does that say about how we value ourselves?
