Did India’s Diplomacy Stumble While Colombia and Mexico Stand Against U.S.A.?

The United States' recent intensification of deportation policies has elicited varied diplomatic responses from countries such as India, Colombia, and Mexico, reflecting each nation's unique geopolitical considerations and domestic priorities.

India’s response to the mass deportation of 104 Indian immigrants from the U.S. to Amritsar, Punjab, exposes its unwillingness—or inability—to take a firm stand against the mistreatment of its citizens abroad. The incident, marked by reports of deportees being forcibly restrained during the flight, sparked outrage at home, with opposition lawmakers disrupting parliamentary proceedings and demanding government intervention.

However, instead of pushing back, External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar merely acknowledged U.S. protocols and assured diplomatic engagement—offering little beyond rhetoric. While countries like Colombia resisted similar deportation measures, India’s meek response raises questions about whether it is prioritizing diplomatic convenience over the rights of its own people.

Colombia initially took a bold stance against U.S. deportation policies, with President Gustavo Petro blocking U.S. military planes carrying deported Colombians from landing. Citing concerns over the treatment of migrants, particularly the use of restraints during flights, Petro positioned his government as a defender of human rights. However, this defiance triggered a diplomatic clash, with President Donald Trump threatening punitive tariffs and sanctions. Under mounting economic pressure, Colombia ultimately backed down, agreeing to accept deportees on U.S. military flights. Foreign Minister Luis Gilberto Murillo later framed the reversal as a commitment to ensuring the dignified treatment of returning citizens, though the retreat underscored the limits of Colombia’s resistance.

Mexico has taken a pragmatic approach to U.S. deportation policies, walking a fine line between domestic interests and diplomatic necessity. While there have been isolated cases of Mexico rejecting U.S. military deportation flights, the country has largely cooperated, reinforcing its northern border to curb illegal immigration and drug trafficking. This cooperation includes deploying troops and tightening security measures—moves that align with U.S. priorities while helping Mexico manage its own migration challenges. By actively engaging in bilateral discussions, Mexico has positioned itself as a willing partner rather than an adversary, opting for strategic diplomacy over outright resistance.

The diplomatic responses of India, Colombia, and Mexico to U.S. deportation policies underscore the complex interplay between national sovereignty, economic interests, and human rights considerations. While India engages diplomatically to ensure the humane treatment of its citizens, Colombia's experience highlights the challenges smaller economies face when confronting U.S. policies. Mexico's cooperation illustrates a pragmatic approach to maintaining bilateral relations and addressing mutual concerns. These varied responses reflect each nation's strategic priorities in navigating the complexities of international diplomacy in the context of U.S. immigration enforcement.