In addition to violent crimes, the plan targets migrants charged with crimes such as burglary, theft, and larceny under the newly signed Laken Riley Act. President Trump emphasized that some individuals are so dangerous that their home countries cannot be trusted to hold them, making their detention at Guantanamo Bay necessary. In addition to expanding detention, the Laken Riley Act allows state governments to sue the federal government for immigration-related failures that result in financial harm exceeding $100 million. The move follows other executive actions aimed at reversing Biden-era policies, including the removal of “protected areas” where immigration enforcement was previously restricted.
In a bold and innovative move to address illegal immigration, President Donald Trump has announced plans to utilize the Guantanamo Bay detention facility in Cuba to house the most dangerous criminal illegal aliens awaiting deportation. This decision marks a significant shift in U.S. immigration policy, leveraging a site historically associated with high-profile detainees.
Guantanamo Bay’s Historical Role as a Detention Facility
In reality, Guantanamo Bay has been used as a detention facility for decades, well before its post-9/11 role. In the 1990s, it served as a processing center for asylum-seekers and refugees. During this time, more than 30,000 Haitian migrants were held there over a six-month period, and thousands of Cuban “rafters” fleeing their country were also detained. Many of these individuals faced long periods of uncertainty and difficult living conditions as they awaited resolution. Additionally, the facility housed a camp specifically for HIV-positive refugees, adding to the complexities of its use during this era.
After 9/11, Guantanamo Bay became globally known as the site where suspected terrorists and “unlawful enemy combatants” were held as part of the Global War on Terror. Beginning on January 11, 2002, detainees were brought to the facility under the argument that they were not entitled to legal protections under U.S. law or the Geneva Conventions. This stance led to significant controversy, as reports emerged of detainee mistreatment, including the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” that many considered torture.
The facility drew widespread criticism from human rights organizations and foreign governments, fueling debates about its legality and ethical implications.
Despite multiple efforts to close Guantanamo Bay—including an executive order from President Obama in 2009—the detention center remains open and operational. As of January 2025, it still houses 15 detainees. The facility continues to be a subject of debate, raising ongoing concerns about national security, human rights, and the broader implications of indefinite detention.
President Trump’s Plan to Repurpose Guantanamo Bay
Legal and Ethical Considerations
President Trump’s plan to use Guantanamo Bay as a detention center for undocumented migrants brings up serious legal and ethical concerns. One major issue is that the U.S. Supreme Court has previously ruled that detainees at Guantanamo have constitutional rights, including the ability to challenge their detention through habeas corpus. This means that if migrants are sent there, similar legal challenges could arise. Additionally, Guantanamo Bay has a history of human rights violations, including allegations of torture and indefinite detention without trial. Expanding its use for migrants raises fears that these controversial practices could continue.
International law could also be a hurdle. The plan may violate refugee and human rights laws, especially the principle of non-refoulement, which protects asylum seekers from being sent back to countries where they could face persecution. Another concern is due process—migrants detained at Guantanamo might have limited access to legal representation and fair hearings, just as past detainees have. The remote location of the facility makes it difficult for human rights groups and lawyers to monitor conditions and offer help, which raises fears about a lack of oversight.
The ethical implications are just as troubling. Guantanamo Bay is infamous for its history of harsh interrogation techniques and indefinite detention. Using it for migrants, some of whom are fleeing violence or poverty, raises serious moral questions about how vulnerable populations should be treated. Critics worry about the potential for abuse, given the facility’s past, and the impact this could have on America’s international reputation. In the long run, repurposing Guantanamo Bay for migrant detention could damage the U.S.’s moral standing and invite global criticism. I doubt President Trump cares much about this as he is seeking a solution to a problem that, in theory, should not even exist. The people who will be sent to GITMO have entered the United States illegally, and many have committed crimes here.
Despite this fact, these concerns make it clear that this plan will face significant legal battles and ethical debates moving forward.
Logistical Challenges and International Implications
President Trump’s plan to use Guantanamo Bay to detain up to 30,000 migrants comes with significant logistical challenges and international consequences. First, the facility itself would need a major expansion to accommodate such a large number of detainees, requiring extensive resources and careful planning. Transporting thousands of migrants to Guantanamo Bay, which is an isolated island location, adds another layer of complexity. The facility would also need a major increase in staff, including security personnel, administrative workers, and medical professionals, to care for detainees. Additionally, handling legal proceedings for so many people in such a remote location would be difficult and expensive. The overall cost of expanding and operating the facility at this scale is expected to be high, but details on funding remain unclear.
On an international level, the plan is already causing diplomatic tensions. Human rights organizations are raising concerns, warning that this move could further harm America’s global reputation. Many see it as a step away from the country’s commitment to protecting refugees and asylum seekers. There is also the risk that other nations could follow the U.S. example and create their own offshore detention centers, potentially weakening global refugee protections.
Additionally, using Guantanamo Bay in this way could strain relations with the home countries of the migrants being detained, making cooperation on immigration and other diplomatic issues more difficult. Regardless of how you feel about the supposed ethical issues, the plan presents major logistical hurdles and risks damaging U.S. relationships abroad, raising serious questions about its long-term viability and impact on international human rights standards.
Conclusion
President Trump’s plan to use Guantanamo Bay to detain dangerous criminal illegal aliens represents a significant shift in U.S. immigration policy. While it leverages a facility with a history of housing high-risk detainees, it also raises complex legal, ethical, and logistical questions that will need to be addressed in the coming months.
Still, this writer feels it is making good use of existing space while making the homeland safer against the threat of migrant crime.
