Refugees International has issued a stern rebuke of a recent U.S. agreement that reallocates funds intended for economic development to bolster deportation efforts in Costa Rica. The condemnation highlights deep concerns over what the group describes as a dangerous trend of outsourcing immigration enforcement responsibilities by the U.S. government.

The controversial deal involves the diversion of approximately $7.85 million from the Economic Support Fund, traditionally earmarked for economic assistance, to the Department of Homeland Security. This move is aimed at enhancing the capacity of Costa Rican authorities to manage deportations, a pivot from the fund's original purpose.

“This is a misuse of U.S. funding,” stated Rachel Schmidtke, Senior Advocate for Latin America at Refugees International. She emphasized that the funds would be better spent on improving asylum processes in Costa Rica rather than enforcing deportations.

The timing of the agreement is particularly striking, given reports of a significant decline in migration through perilous routes like the Darién Gap, which has seen a near-total reduction in crossings, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

Yael Schacher, Refugees International’s Director for the Americas and Europe, criticized the U.S. strategy of leveraging third-country agreements to sidestep international refugee protections. Schacher described the practice as inhumane and a detrimental "race to the bottom," urging Congress to closely scrutinize how appropriated funds are being utilized and calling for international resistance against such policies.

The recent development mirrors a similar initiative previously introduced during the Biden administration, which also faced backlash from various refugee and immigrant rights organizations for its approach toward migration management.

Earlier in the year, concerns about such U.S.-influenced deportation agreements prompted rights groups, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, to appeal to Panama to discontinue its involvement in analogous schemes that affected asylum seekers from diverse nations such as Afghanistan, China, and Iran.

Refugees International’s latest outcry reflects broader apprehensions within the human rights community regarding the evolving landscape of international asylum and migration policies, particularly those influenced by U.S. foreign policy decisions.