At a transit center outside Accra, the humidity clings to the walls like an invisible weight. A group of young men from Sierra Leone and Guinea sit beneath a rusted corrugated awning, clutching folders that bear a surprising seal: the insignia of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. None of them have ever set foot in the United States. Yet they are here, in Ghana, because Washington asked this small West African nation to take them.
“I was told I was being processed for entry to America,” says Ibrahim, a 27-year-old Guinean who fled political violence, survived the Sahara crossing, slipped through Algerian border towns, and finally entered a U.S.-partnered “mobility program.” The way he tells it, he believed he was finally headed toward refuge. “Then suddenly we were flown here. Not the U.S. And nobody explains why.”
Around him, dozens of migrants—Somalis, Congolese, Cameroonians, Gambians—drift in a kind of bureaucratic fog. For some, this compound was meant to be a waystation. Increasingly, it is a dead end. America’s newest migration strategy is not to bring people in or push them out, but to prevent them from arriving at all—by shifting the borders outward, onto poorer African nations with fewer resources and weaker institutions.
For decades, U.S. enforcement efforts focused primarily on Latin America, where officials leaned on Mexico, Guatemala, and Panama to interrupt migrant routes. But as the number of African asylum seekers attempting routes through South and Central America increased—especially from Mauritania, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Angola, Eritrea, and Cameroon—Washington recalibrated. African migrants now make up one of the fastest-growing groups reaching the U.S. southern border. Their arrival has triggered a sprawling web of agreements, incentives, and diplomatic nudges encouraging African governments to intercept, host, or detain migrants before they ever set foot in the Western Hemisphere.
U.S. officials call this “regional processing.” Migration scholars call it what it increasingly resembles: offshoring the American border.
The system is intentionally diffuse. There is no signature policy announcement, no sweeping treaty, nothing that Congress could debate or vote on. Instead it operates through bilateral deals, development sweeteners, intelligence cooperation, and quiet financial incentives—all designed to ensure that African migrants are stopped long before they approach an American port of entry.
In Mauritania, a sprawling desert nation where youth unemployment is high and food insecurity widespread, U.S.-supported security programs now track smuggling routes more aggressively than ever. For years, these routes ferried West Africans toward the Canary Islands or onward to Latin America. Now, Mauritanian police and security forces—trained with American assistance—patrol desert roads and coastal towns in search of convoys carrying migrants north.
A Mauritanian official, who spoke anonymously to avoid jeopardizing funding agreements, says the country’s role is widely understood even if never officially articulated. “The United States gives us support. We help decrease the movement,” he says. “They don’t say it directly, but we know what the expectation is.” The problem, he adds, is that Mauritania “does not have the infrastructure to hold so many people. But we need the partnership. So we try.”
In Ghana, a country grappling with economic crisis, crippling inflation, and IMF-mandated austerity measures, authorities have quietly accepted migrants diverted from the Americas—many plucked from transit centers in Colombia and Panama. Local officials describe confusing handoffs, rushed coordination, and little advance notice. “These are not resettlements,” says a civil servant in Kumasi. “They are relocations of people who were heading somewhere else, and we have no resources to support them.”
Further east, Rwanda, which has already attracted international controversy for its asylum deal with the United Kingdom, signals willingness to play a similar role for the U.S. as well. For President Paul Kagame, cooperation brings political capital, foreign investment, and international legitimacy. For migrants, it means their asylum fate may be determined in a country thousands of miles from where they intended to seek protection.
In Niger, still destabilized by a military coup, smuggling hubs like Agadez—long a waypoint for trans-Saharan migration—have come under intensified scrutiny as the U.S. seeks to maintain influence in a strategically critical region. Local transport economies, once dependent on migrant flows, are collapsing. Humanitarian organizations warn that migrants pushed out of official routes are now scattered across even more dangerous terrain, with fewer eyes watching and fewer services available.
U.S. officials defend their approach by insisting that expanding processing networks closer to migrants’ home regions will reduce deaths along the Darién Gap, undermine smuggling networks, and create “legal pathways.” Yet what migrants, aid workers, and African officials describe does not resemble expanded opportunity. It is, instead, a shadow system that reroutes people without fully informing them, strands them in unfamiliar countries, and relocates the burdens of the U.S. immigration crisis onto states that are ill-equipped to absorb them.
A humanitarian worker in Dakar says she has encountered “migrants who believed they were boarding a plane to the United States, only to open their eyes mid-flight and realize they were going elsewhere.” She adds, “The entire system relies on their lack of information. If they knew what was happening, they would never agree to it.”
This opacity appears strategic. The success of the policy at home depends on keeping its consequences out of sight. When border arrival numbers drop, American voters see a political win. When thousands of migrants are stranded in Accra, Nouadhibou, or Kigali, no one in the U.S. notices.
The arrangement creates clear winners and losers. Migrant-smuggling networks profit handsomely from more heavily policed routes and now charge higher fees for increasingly dangerous journeys. Corrupt officials in African transit hubs extract bribes to let migrants pass. Governments like Rwanda and Ghana gain diplomatic favor and financial incentives from the U.S. and its allies. American politicians—on both sides of the aisle—claim success as border numbers fall.
But the losers far outnumber the winners. Migrants are left in limbo in nations they never intended to reach, with no legal protections and no path onward. Poor African countries shoulder the cost of food, housing, and policing despite strained budgets and rising domestic unrest. Local communities face new social tensions as displaced people move into neighborhoods already grappling with economic stress. Humanitarian groups are overwhelmed and underfunded, forced to triage life-or-death needs.
In ports around Nouakchott, migrants sleep in abandoned boats or on scraps of cardboard behind warehouses. In Accra, volunteers scramble to find translators for Amharic, Somali, Fulani, and Lingala speakers who suddenly arrive with no explanation. In Dakar, police have begun clearing informal transit hubs as part of a U.S.-supported crackdown on irregular migration. “We see more trauma, more confusion, more despair,” says a Senegalese psychologist who works with migrants returned from Latin America. “These policies do not reduce suffering. They only move it elsewhere.”
Politically, the calculus is clear: Washington needs lower border numbers, and African governments need assistance. But resentment is growing. Civil-society leaders in West Africa warn that these arrangements risk fuelling xenophobia and social backlash. In Ghana, small protests erupted in late 2024 after reports circulated that foreign migrants were being housed in state facilities. The demonstrations drew little global coverage but revealed simmering frustrations: Africans feel that decisions affecting their poorest communities are being made in Washington, not at home.
Some government officials privately echo these concerns. “We are partners, not subcontractors,” says a diplomat from a West African country, speaking from Addis Ababa. “If the United States has a migration problem, it must address the root causes. It cannot export responsibility to nations with far fewer resources.”
Back at the Accra center, Ibrahim scrolls through photos of home: his mother’s courtyard in Conakry, friends gathered around a pot of rice, the long desert road he crossed in hopes of something better. He did not expect safety to feel like waiting in line in a country he had never planned to enter. “I ran looking for a future,” he says. “Now I don’t know what future is possible. I thought America would decide. Instead, Africa is deciding for America.”
He pauses, then repeats a sentence he has said in variations all day. “It feels like we are goods being shipped.”
His words echo through the compound. They reflect the human cost of a policy built for political convenience: a system that shifts America’s border thousands of miles away, disperses suffering across continents, and relies on the fact that those most affected have no voice in shaping the system that governs their lives.
Washington may succeed in keeping African migrants away from the Texas border. But as thousands find themselves stranded in nations that did not ask for them and cannot support them, one question becomes harder to ignore: How long can a global superpower export its migration problem before the nations absorbing the fallout finally push back?
Discussion about this post