```html US Strikes Deportation Deals with Honduras and Uganda Amid Rights Concerns

The United States has finalized bilateral deportation agreements with Honduras and Uganda as part of a broader strategy to manage migration flows, prompting strong criticism from human rights organizations. The agreements, revealed in documents obtained by CBS, the BBC's US partner, outline plans for the two nations to accept deported migrants who are not their own citizens.

Honduras has agreed to receive several hundred Spanish-speaking migrants, while Uganda will accept an unspecified number of African and Asian migrants who had claimed asylum at the US-Mexico border. The move is seen as a continuation of policies initiated under the Trump administration, aiming to expand the network of countries willing to accept deportees.

Concerns over Migrant Safety and International Law

Human rights campaigners have voiced serious concerns about the potential risks faced by migrants deported under these agreements. They argue that individuals could be sent to countries where they face persecution, discrimination, or other forms of harm. Detractors also suggest these agreements may violate international law.

"These agreements raise fundamental questions about the US's commitment to protecting vulnerable populations," says Dr. Fatima Hassan, a migration law expert at the University of Cape Town. "The principle of non-refoulement, a cornerstone of international refugee law, prohibits states from returning individuals to countries where they face a well-founded fear of persecution. These deals potentially undermine that principle."

Details of the Agreements

According to CBS reports, Uganda's agreement stipulates that it will only accept migrants without criminal histories. However, the total number of migrants Uganda will ultimately accept remains unclear. Honduras has agreed to receive migrants for a period of two years, including families with children, with the possibility of extending the agreement to accept more individuals.

Wider US Deportation Strategy

These agreements are part of a wider effort by the US to establish deportation arrangements with countries across multiple continents, including nations with questionable human rights records. At least a dozen countries have reportedly agreed to accept deported migrants from other nations.

The US State Department recently announced a "safe third country" agreement with Paraguay. Rwanda has indicated its willingness to accept up to 250 migrants from the US, subject to its approval of each individual case. Panama and Costa Rica previously agreed to accept several hundred African and Asian migrants from the US.

Historical Context and Policy Shifts

The current US administration's approach to deportation builds upon policies enacted during the Trump era. These policies have been controversial, particularly those that expand the scope of deportations to countries other than a migrant's country of origin.

In June, the US Supreme Court allowed the resumption of deportations to third countries without allowing migrants the opportunity to challenge the potential risks they might face. This decision drew strong dissents from Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson, who criticized it as a "gross abuse."

The expansion of deportation agreements also comes at a time when the United Nations and human rights groups have raised concerns about the potential violation of international law. These groups argue that deporting migrants to countries where they are not citizens could expose them to significant risks.

Implications for Africa

Uganda's agreement to accept migrants deported from the US highlights the growing role of African nations in managing global migration flows. However, some analysts caution against viewing these agreements solely through the lens of burden-sharing.

"It's crucial to understand the underlying motivations of African countries entering into these agreements," says Professor Adebayo Williams, a political analyst specializing in African migration patterns. "Factors such as economic incentives, diplomatic considerations, and the desire to enhance international standing may all play a role. We must critically examine the long-term implications for both the migrants involved and the host countries."

Controversies and Concerns

Rwanda's prior involvement in similar arrangements has drawn criticism due to the country's human rights record. Concerns have been raised that migrants sent to Rwanda could face further deportation to countries where they are at risk. The US agreements with Honduras and Uganda are likely to face continued scrutiny from human rights organizations and international bodies, particularly regarding the safety and well-being of deported migrants. ```