A sympathetic deportation story CBS built an entire segment around fell apart within hours of airing, after the agency it accused fired back with a wife, two kids, and a final removal order the network never mentioned.
Quick Take
- 60 Minutes profiled Moussa Diawara, a Malian man deported from Texas who says he was sent to Ghana, then forced onto a flight to Mali, a country a judge once ruled unsafe for him.
- Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) responded publicly within hours, calling Diawara an illegal alien with a 2012 final removal order who allegedly claimed to be gay to avoid deportation.
- The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) says Ghana gave diplomatic assurances for his safety and disputes that baggage tags listing Mali prove anything about his actual destination.
- The real legal fight is narrower than the headlines suggest: whether the government gave proper notice before sending him toward a country judges had already ruled off-limits.
What The 60 Minutes Segment Claimed
CBS told viewers that Diawara spent nearly half his life in the United States, married, raised two American-citizen children, worked, paid taxes, and had no criminal record. The network reported that a 2012 immigration judge barred his removal to Mali over persecution fears, though removal to a safe third country remained legally available.
According to Diawara’s account, ICE held him in Texas detention for roughly three weeks without letting him reach his lawyer or a judge before removal. He was flown to Ghana on July 31, a country 60 Minutes described as one where he had no ties, and within five days Ghanaian officials allegedly put him on a Mali-bound flight.
ICE’s Response Landed Fast And Hit Hard
ICE did not wait for the news cycle to settle. Within hours, the agency posted that Diawara was “NOT a Texas father” but an “ILLEGAL ALIEN from Mali” with a final removal order dated February 2, 2012, and claimed he invoked homosexuality to dodge deportation despite having a wife and two children back in Mali.
DHS general counsel James Percival added that Ghana, not Mali, was the actual removal destination, and that the country had given diplomatic assurances for Diawara’s safety. He called the baggage tags listing Mali a product of detention-facility contractors with no visibility into third-country arrangements, not proof of where officers intended to send him.
The Facts That Don’t Cancel Each Other Out
Both sides can be telling the truth about different things at once. A man can have no criminal record and still be in the country unlawfully after overstaying a visa. A judge’s 2012 order barring removal to Mali can coexist with a later, separate removal order DHS says it fully followed. CBS leaned on the family story; ICE leaned on the paperwork. Neither fact set erases the other.
The homosexuality claim sits at the center of the fight, and it’s the hardest piece to referee in public. ICE says Diawara invoked it to avoid deportation despite a wife and two kids in Mali. The underlying asylum file, hearing transcript, and any credibility findings aren’t part of the public record here, which means neither side’s framing can be fully checked by outsiders right now.
Third-Country Deportations Are Becoming The New Normal
This case lands inside a much bigger shift. Third-country removals used to be rare, reserved for cases where a home country simply refused to take someone back. Recent reporting describes a broader pattern now, with the government striking removal arrangements involving dozens of receiving countries. That expansion raises a fair question Congress and courts are still sorting out: how much notice and legal opportunity does someone deserve before landing in a country a judge never approved?
That question, not the dueling labels of “Texas father” versus “illegal alien,” is the one that actually decides whether this removal was lawful. CBS built a story on family ties and a lack of criminal history. ICE answered with a signed order and a sexuality claim it says was fabricated. Conservatives watching this unfold have every reason to want the full court record public before anyone declares a winner, because right now both sides are arguing from selectively favorable facts.
Sources:
redstate.com, cbsnews.com, yen.com.gh, x.com, knewz.com
