On January 29, U.S. President Donald Trump signed an execution memorandum directing his administration to expand its detention capacity at the Immigration Operations Center in Guantanamo Bay. Speaking before signing, Trump claimed that the proposed 30,000 beds were necessary to “eliminate the scourge of immigration crimes” and would hold “the most serious crime of illegal foreigners threatening Americans” to be deported.

This is amid a fierce attack on anti-immigrant execution orders, including the Lake Riley Act, requiring the Department of Homeland Security to detain arrested but not necessarily guilty non-U.S. nationals for theft, theft, theft or the shop-in-one , in order to deny due process of visits by many national immigrants.

These policies are extreme, and even if they seem to indicate the current moment of authoritarianism, they are not unique to Trump or the United States. They also have no historical precedents.

For decades, the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia have been detaining offshore abroad and increasingly convicting immigration. Tracking how these policies have developed together, circulating in all three countries, unpopular, reveals how the roots of this current moment of authoritarianism in world politics are more deeply rooted than any country, party or political perspective. Instead, their roots are racialized violent violence, which is constantly recycled and amplified through the borders of nation-states.

The U.S. experiments on offshore detention began in the 1980s, opening a detention center in Fort Allen, Puerto Rico, and introducing a “interception” policy that attempts to intercept and return primarily to Haiti. Haitian shelterers to prevent them from reaching maritime shelter in the United States. In the 1990s, these policies were expanded at the Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay, which had detained 36,000 Haitian and 20,000 Cubans in the past for asylum between 1991 and 1996.

Soon after, in 2001, the Australian government introduced the so-called Pacific solution that brought Nauru and Manus Island into the carefully crafted in New Guinea. Maritime detention building. These centres have undermined these centres by human rights violations and widespread evidence of abuse and cruelty, but the Pacific solution continues to this day and is regarded by the British government as a model of imitation.

The former conservative cabinet drew direct inspiration from Australia’s offshore policy to design a plan to expel people seeking asylum to Rwanda. Although the plan was put on hold when Keir Starmer's Labour came to power in 2024, he also viewed Italy's offshoring in Albania as a model to follow.

In all these countries, even political side effects persist even if political vicissududes determine the incarcerated persons from the coast of the detainees. Thus, in Australia, when the first iteration of Pacific Solutions ended in 2007, the physical space and legal framework of offshoring remained intact, making the policy easy to revive in Pacific Solution 2.0 in 2012 and hardening.

When the Australian government moved the last person out of the Nauru Detention Centre in 2023, they never terminated their company contract, allowing the centre to re-live with people seeking asylum only months later.

One of the main effects of offshore detention is the exclusion of detainees in their territory legally, from legal rights and protections, and quarantine them with the support of communities and advocacy networks. This is reflected in the country by the growing conviction of immigration.

By creating new immigration-related offences, requiring criminal convictions for detention and deportation of non-citizens, and canceling the pathways for appeals or representation, states have established an increasingly private population with no rights. Meanwhile, they omit immigration and crime in public debate.

This provides politicians with a competitive scenario, competing with each other through expanding detention as the only possible solution, especially in election activities.

This is clearly demonstrated by the U.S. example of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act of 1996. Through the advancement of the presidential election, Iirira has expanded the definition of “aggravated felons” and deportable non-citizens (including retrospective). The bill establishes close cooperation between immigration enforcement and local police, greatly increasing the number of detention and deportation and militarization of the U.S.-Mexico border.

Today, Trump’s executive order and the claim to defend “invasion” of “criminal illegal foreigners” is a reinforcement of this existing system and its racialized deterrence logic.

Like a spinning boomerang, this system of crime and imprisonment for those who seek dignity within and within the state. In the election cycle, this conviction is exacerbated when borders become glasses of political power, while politically trans-party use difficult immigration narratives to prove their ability to rule the country and disperse health services, housing, welfare, employment, etc. fail.

The past 12 months are no exception, with elections held in the UK and the US and now in Australia. Each of these elections revolves around the overall expansion of policy proposals for offshore detention, the deportation of large numbers of people, and the destruction (if not death) of our international protection system.

As the politicization of immigration continues, actions that are considered acceptable towards rights have led to policies that have greater restrictions on rights and promise more harm.

This cruel sight also distracted another failure - the failure of these restrictive policies and a serious lack of political leadership over immigration. Time and again, research shows that these policies do not stop people from reaching, but further harm the already marginalized people in our society.

Hazards and abandonment are the basis of the international immigration detention system, not the lack of monitoring or the unexpected byproducts of rogue individuals or companies. Hazards and abandonment are "design". They are a necessary feature of the mandatory detention and deportation system driven by such jeopardy political and financial profits.

However, violence and injustice in detention are often resisted. Civil rights athletes, grassroots activists, faith groups, community organizers, lawyers, family and friends, worldwide, protests, strikes, riots and jailbreaks by detainees.

Conditions, abuse, judgments and laws are challenged, resistant attacks, issuance of bonds, passable shelter policies, refunds from border law enforcement agencies and local networks built to close detention sites and support people at risk of detention.

This resistance and unity was demonstrated during the 23-day protests in which Papua New Guinea ruled unconstitutional in 2017, 23-day protests were jailed at the Manus Island Detention Centre. Despite the intimidation of security forces and its access to food, water and electricity, these people fought peacefully for freedom in lieu of the new locations in reincarceration, with local Manus communities and Australian advocates Conversation is conducted while communicating, while communicating their dilemma against international audiences.

Recorded treatment of people held in offshore locations tells about authoritarianism in immigration governance that affects citizens and non-citizens. As Behrouz Boochani, poet, journalist and former prisoner at the former Australian Immigration Detention Centre described in his book Freedom, only freedom: “Refugees have identified and exposed the emerging 21st century dictatorship and The face of fascism, it is a freedom. Authoritarian and fascism will one day penetrate Australian society and enter people's homes like cancer."

In the United States, like elsewhere, grassroots alliances between people with detention experience and those who have decades of struggle for abolitionist organizers form the basis for Trump 1.0’s resistance, and they will do so again. Because those who are under the attacks of the carnival state, rather than the corporate liberalism of mainstream "left" parties - constitute the strongest opposition and alternative to our current authoritarian moment.

The views expressed in this article are the author's own views and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of Al Jazeera.