A country that said no: Palauans nix US proposal to send deportees to Palau
- Admin
- 7 minutes ago
- 5 min read
By Bernadette Carreon
While ramping up its crackdown on undocumented aliens, unwanted foreigners and asylum seekers, Washington has lined up countries it hopes will accept the deportees. Palau is on the U.S. list of potential takers.
The Trump administration proposes to send up to 75 deportees to Palau, dangling $100,000 in cost defrayment per person. In total, that would be $7.5 million potentially flowing into Palau’s coffers—plus law enforcement assistance to address the country’s drug smuggling challenges.
As far as Palau President Surangel Whipps Jr. is concerned, the U.S. offer is sweet enough. After all, he said, the deportees who may be bound for Palau “have no criminal background other than potential criminal charges related to allegedly entering the U.S. illegally.”
Not so fast.
Critics ask: Is it worth risking Palau’s peace and security?
The U.S. has been negotiating with Whipps, but Palau's leader is facing an uphill battle on the home front. The Palau Congress and the Council of Chiefs have both rejected the proposal twice.
The council is wary of turning Palau into a dumping ground for those unwanted by the U.S.—whether or not they are “refugees” or “asylum seekers,”—citing the lack of clarity and the number of unresolved questions arising from the proposal.
“We wish to emphasize a value raised by many Palauans—that Palau continues to be a peaceful Pristine Paradise, home for all of us and our children and continues to be promoted internationally as a Pristine Paradise for our guests, visitors and friends,” the council said.
Palau's Congress stood pat on its earlier position as well. "We advise against proceeding further on this matter only because of the practical issues that the introduction of the refugees would raise in our society," Senate President Hokkons Baules wrote to Whipps, reiterating the congressional recommendation in July.
A Palauan lawmaker, who requested anonymity, said the discussion should have ended after the House of Delegates and the Senate issued a joint statement rejecting the U.S. proposal.
The lawmaker noted “a lot of confusing and conflicting” details clouding the proposal. “Now (the president) is hinting at tourist visas to be converted to employment," he said, adding that the people are "confused, upset and somewhat frustrated from the president's flip-flopping on the matter.”
The proposal, which raises questions about resources, integration and sovereignty, doesn’t sit well with Palauan citizens either.
Hadleen Medalarak, a curriculum specialist with the Ministry of Education, said Palau's leadership has to deal with more urgent domestic problems, such as the high cost of living.
“Food and water are becoming unaffordable. Power and sewer rates are at their highest, yet services remain incomplete with frequent sewage overflows,” she said. “Koror is overcrowded. Installing water lines or electricity on village lands can cost as much as buying a new home.”
Medalarak said the government must prioritize its people and land before accommodating other countries’ problems. “Once our nation is developed and our people are thriving, then we can consider (accepting) asylum seekers or immigrants," she said.
Tutii Chilton, operations manager at Island Conservation in Sonsorol State, agreed that Palau must first take care of its backyard. "Palau should not deal with other countries' problems when we have our own. Our National Congress and traditional chiefs have said no,” he said. “Yet, my president keeps insisting we talk more; we need a committee. Why do we need a committee when our leaders have already said no?"
Earlier this year, the U.S. began sending hundreds of deportees—mostly Venezuelans—to El Salvador, where they are being held in a maximum-security prison notorious for its brutality. The U.S. has also sent immigrants from Asia, the Middle East and Africa to Panama and Costa Rica, including families with young children.
In April, Secretary of State Marco Rubio disclosed that the Trump administration was “working with other countries to say ‘we want to send you some of the most despicable human beings to your country and you do that as a favor to us.'”
“The farther away from America, the better, so they can’t come back across the border,” Rubio said. “I am not apologetic about it. We’re doing that. The president was elected to keep Americans safe and get rid of a bunch of perverts, pedophiles and child rapists out of the country.”
Palau is freely associated with the U.S. through the Compact of Free Association, which comes with mutual expectations. In consideration of the partnership, Whipps maintained that the dialogue regarding the U.S. government's request must continue.
But Chilton cautioned the president against making a unilateral decision amid the people’s opposition to the plan. “As a sovereign nation, we can say no even to our friends,” he said. "Just because you are the president doesn't mean you can make a decision that affects our society without listening to your people.”
Jo Ngoriakl, a digital policy researcher, outlined the legal and economic risks involved in accepting the deportees. “Who has the power to agree—the legislature or the executive? Is the current process violating the separation of powers? Is Palau ready for the long-term costs of hosting foreign nationals—medical, social and legal expenses?” she asked.
Ngoriakl also warned that admitting undesirable aliens into Palau would hurt the destination’s brand. "Our reputation as a tourist destination could be harmed in an era of social media and viral boycotts,” Ngoriakl said. “We need to learn from the Nauru experience and our own experience with the Uyghurs in 2009.”
A prominent local business owner pointed to Palau's previous experience with accepting refugees: "Palau doesn't have the capacity or facilities to accept them at all,” said the businessman, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
“They accepted the Chinese Uyghurs. All disappeared. They left Palau. No one blended with the community. All found ways to leave Palau with no concern about Palau or the U.S.,” the businessman said.
In June 2009, Palau agreed to temporarily resettle six Uyghur detainees from Guantanamo Bay.
Johnson Toribiong, then president, welcomed them as a "humanitarian gesture."
The U.S. provided $93,333 per person to cover living expenses, though controversy emerged when Toribiong used some funds to house the Uighurs on properties owned by his relatives.
The men never felt they could integrate with Palauan society, with some comparing the island to "a lusher, larger Guantanamo." Attempts to work regular jobs failed due to cultural differences and efforts to use their traditional leather-working skills proved unsuccessful. Tragically, one man's toddler, conceived and born in Palau, died after falling from a balcony.
By June 2015, all the Uyghurs had quietly left Palau, departing one or two at a time on commercial flights in coordination with American officials. Palauan authorities never disclosed their destinations.
The Uyghur resettlement offers a critical context for understanding Palau's current resistance. Despite good intentions and substantial U.S. financial support, the program failed on multiple levels.
The Trump administration’s recent request for Palau to host deportees was first discussed in July. After meetings with the legislature and Council of Chiefs, Palau's delegation told U.S. officials in Washington, D.C. that "the proposal as presented at that time was unacceptable."
A Sept. 17 meeting in Palau with U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau included senators, delegates, chiefs and executive officials. "Representatives maintained that as a sovereign nation and responsible partner, Palau needs to remain open to discussion rather than closing the door to dialogue," the statement said.
In response to a senator’s recommendation, Whipps established a working group, which met on Oct. 6. The Senate boycotted the meeting.
Critics characterize the dynamic as transactional: economic benefits in exchange for security and immigration concessions. However, supporters argue the relationship reflects Palau's strategic choices and genuine partnership with the United States.
Whipps' strong support for U.S. initiatives has positioned him as a key ally in Washington's Pacific strategy. However, questions remain about the long-term implications for Palauan independence and society.
The negotiations highlight the complex dynamics of compact relationships, where economic dependency intersects with geopolitical strategy in America's efforts to counter Chinese influence in the Pacific.
Subscribe to
our digital
momthly edition