Inside Ecuador-bound C-17 military plane deporting 80 illegal immigrants
By: McDonnell Douglas (New York Post)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
More than 80 illegal migrants nabbed under President Trump's border crackdown were recently loaded onto a C-17 military plane in El Paso, Texas, for a one-way flight back to Ecuador.
Fox News got access to the repatriation flight, which took off from Biggs Army Airfield late Tuesday morning carrying 43 women and 37 men, including several families.
"The take-home message here is, 'Not today, not today, not tomorrow, not next week,'" US Border Patrol Special Operations Supervisor Hamid Nikseresht told the outlet.
"Do not come to the United States and enter illegally."
#EXCLUSIVE: Fox News gets exclusive access to the latest repatriation flight from El Paso to Ecuador. We got to see inside the C-17 as more than 80 illegal migrants were loaded inside and removed back to their home county. The Pentagon has said that the military will help deport… pic.twitter.com/da2Bd55IXv
— Brooke Taylor (@Brooketaylortv) January 29, 2025
Border Patrol officials said the passengers were in the US illegally and had been nabbed between ports of entry checkpoints, smuggling operations or stash houses, according to Fox News.
One of Trump's first actions upon taking office was declaring a national emergency at the southern US border, opening the door for the federal government to marshal additional military resources to address the crisis.
On top of deploying an additional 1,500 troops, the Department of Defense is providing airlift support for Department of Homeland Security-operated flights, including the one to which Fox News was granted access.
The Boeing C-17 Globemaster III, developed for the US Air Force in the 1980s and 1990s by McDonnell Douglas, is frequently relied upon for tactical and strategic airlift missions — helping ferry troops and cargo where it's needed around the globe.
Customs and Border Protection told the outlet that the plane is a major asset in swiftly getting illegal immigrants back to their countries of origin.
"With the support of our Department of Defense partners, we're sending the message that if it takes you 30, 60 or 90 days in some cases, to come to the United States illegally, enter, once you're found amenable to removal under Title 8, we can have you back in your home country within seven hours," Nikseresht said.
"That puts you pretty much anywhere in Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador and anywhere in between."
Some of the flight crew on the Ecuador-bound C-17 were on the flights transporting illegal migrants to Colombia that were briefly turned away by President Gustavo Petro.
Petro quickly changed his tune once Trump threatened to slap a 25% tariff on goods imported to the US from the South American country — even promising that would jump to 50% in a week.
The US Embassy in Ecuador on Wednesday morning shared photos on X of the flight arriving and the migrants exiting the aircraft under the watchful eye of US Army personnel, with family members greeting them by a bus parked on the airport tarmac.
"We are firm in our commitment to ending illegal migration and strengthening US border security," Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in the embassy's post.
Taunting, spamming, and off topic comments will be removed at the discretion of group mods.
NT members that vote up their own comments, repeat comments, reply to themselves or continue to disrupt the conversation risk having all of their comments deleted.
Quote the person(s) to whom you are replying to preserve continuity of this seed.
Calling members "trolls", "dishonest", references to "MAGA", fascism, memes, personal insults and death wishing will result in your comment being deleted.
All of NT's rules apply
Tags
Who is online
56 visitors
80 on a C-17 Globemaster III is actually pretty damn comfortable. And it's a much smoother flight than other Air Force Aircraft.
In the video you can see inside the aircraft. The set up for the seating allows for a lot of room. When the 82d Airborne jumps from the C-17 there are 100 paratroopers and flight crew. Additional seat can be added for larger passenger movement as well.
The guy who has to clean that toilet...
I only hope they fumigate the planes after transporting such a shipment.
Not saying these people are nasty. I've seen some pretty nasty Americans.
Where have they been living? Were they homeless?
Those planes need to be fumigated.
And it only cost about eight times as much as the tradition means of passenger flight. Where is DOGE?!
and if they had not been let in, there would not have been any cost for this flight.
Deflecting from my comment?
Pointing out how this cost and other problems could have been avoided by identifying the root cause
That’s nice. Republicans are in charge now, so time to stop crying about the past and start leading. Where is DOGE?!
When they are gone the costs and problems are gone so the sooner that happens the less total taxpayer money is actually spent. Use the assets available to remove the problem quickly
This is a very simple question. Why spend 8 times more than you need to on such an expensive operation?
Loading then on railroad autoracks and hauling then to the border would have been cheaper. But some would complain about that
Ok. Are you going to answer my question or just keep bobbing and weaving?
Shutting down all your idiotic DEI programs to save money.
lol. Name one.
Was an 8 times cheaper arrangement available?
The military plane was ready to go and back for another load quickly.
Military flight crews must stay qualified, these flights also fulfill that.
Sending this message is worth a lot. It will discourage others from trying to come
"we're sending the message that if it takes you 30, 60 or 90 days in some cases, to come to the United States illegally, enter, once you're found amenable to removal under Title 8, we can have you back in your home country within seven hours," Nikseresht said."
Wow, talk about grasping at straws. Now your story is that it was soooo urgent to get those dirty brown people out of the country that we needed to load them on a military plane designed to carry thousands of tons of tanks. Funny how republicans didn’t have any trouble finding commercial flights for immigrants. What will be your excuse when he does this a thousand more times?
you are trying to use the cost to solve the problem to justify keeping illegals here?
The lefts racism just never stops, other than you can you show anyone who has referred to them as Dirty brown people?
Not at all. Like I keep saying, republicans are now in charge and they need to lead now. If you’re going to send them out of the country then it’s not too much to ask that it be done with some sense of fiscal responsibility. Since you’re obviously not going to trust me, do yourself a favor and look up the costs associated with this boneheaded approach for yourself.
This coming from a member of a party that had zero fiscal responsibility for 4 years.
Hell, even your DEI hire VP spent 1.2 billion dollars for a what should have been an easy election and was still 200 million in debt after the election.
That's a pretty racist comment. Maybe educating yourself on the demographics of the illegals would be beneficial right now.
The C-17 not a little POS aircraft. I recommend you do some research. Maybe this will help get you started:
https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/1529726/c-17-globemaster-iii/#:~:text=C%2D17%20Globemaster%20III%20taxis,Operations%20Enduring%20and%20Iraqi%20Freedom .
It is a much smoother and more comfortable flight than a Boeing 777 with far greater reach.
The operation is far cheaper than using civilian aircraft in that the flight hours are paid via the DoD Budget and includes training for the flight crew (you can't accomplish the same training on a civilian aircraft).
This is also the same aircraft that was used to get "refugees" out of Afghanistan when Biden made the decision to retreat and leave the Taliban $500 million in military equipment.
[✘]
Uhhhh … yeah, those characteristics are compiled for the military usage it is intended for. To call it cheaper and crow about it being smooth and comfortable is ridiculously obtuse. Being comfortable would be the first reason you guys would balk at using it for this purpose, but since your cult leader called for it you are all about the comfort of immigrants now, huh? It is a colossal waste of our tax dollars, a fact which is born out in many sources if you care enough to do the research.
So what's the problem? Not function. Not those being transported.
I've given you an example for possible funding in 2.2.2. But I did forget to include the money saved because they won't be leeching of programs for US citizens any longer.
As somebody who has flown on the C-17, C-130 and C-5 internationally and jumped from them with the 82d Airborne, the C-17 is THE preferred aircraft BECAUSE it is a smoother flight and more comfortable.
Honestly, It's not my problem if these illegals are uncomfortable on the plane.
THERE IT IS!!!!! The hypocrite response. You were good with Biden sending billions to other countries and wasting it on illegals. But Trump spends money to protect the country, you have a problem.
Charger calls them feral cats every time he has the opportunity. At least I’m being sarcastic.
What is it with you guys and your automatic whataboutisms?
That's my name for them
Why deflect?
Does that hurt your feelings?
So NOW cost is an issue?
At any rate, the flow of money to Ukraine has ceased to there is a few billion to pay for that.
Seriously, we’re not talking about a small amount of money. To use this method (ie macho military optics) would run into the billions or more to accomplish what Trump wants to do. Again - where is DOGE?!
Seriously, you're worried about cost NOW. What's the sudden change?
Well, the money being funneled to Ukraine has come to an end. There there is a few billion for funding. Leaving the Paris agreement frees up a few more billion.
lol, seriously, you’re not concerned about reckless government spending all the sudden? Why does DOGE exist?
Why are you suddenly concerned over it. Oh wait...
Nonsense. The Paris Agreement is voluntary. Don't like the emissions targets, change them.
No penalties, nothing paid. Savings, ZERO.
The Paris Agreement gives countries options. Leaving isn’t meant to be one | Stanford Report
And the US was "voluntarily" paying about $3 Billion. And it dates back to Obama.
It's a $3 savings that is better spent here in the US.
Did you read the article?
It was a voluntary pledge to an international fund.
Only a $billion was paid in under Obama.
The rest never materialized under Obama, Trump or Biden.
Thanks for the info.
And suddenly democrats are worried about cost.
Does anybody really think the civilian carriers Biden was using were not gouging the government right and left for those flights? Compared to that, the use of military aircraft probably comes out cheaper in the long run.
[✘]
You are guessing about something Biden did and then using that overtly biased guesswork to deny something that is so obviously factual. Actual news reporters have provided these figures to the dollar.
Emphasis mine...........
Yeah, that's nailing it down................../S
In other words...
Numbers out of the ass.
It costs between 25,000.00 to $28,000.00 per flight hour to fly the C17
mostly because it uses four times the fuel as a standard commercial jet.
Using these behemoths to fly 80 people to anywhere is a waste of resources
especially if we need them sometime in the future for their actual purposes.
It would cost even more to use a C-5M Super Galaxy. Besides, many regional airports in South and Central America do not have long enough runways to accommodate anything larger than C-17 or a C-130, both of which are specifically designed for STOL (Short Takeoff & Landing) operations. The 80 passengers on that C-17 would easily have been accommodated on a C-130 at a most likely cheaper cost.
A 747-400 costs the same at around $25K - $35K per hour to operate. So we absorb it into the military budget rather than pay an airline that fee plus...................
And suddenly Republicans aren't worried about the cost.
Both reactions are completely predictable because this is politics and each side has to play their games. Each side has to pretend that they love it when they party spends money and that nothing is wrong with funding programs your party supports while also being overly critical of any programs your opponent is supporting and wanting to fund.
One interesting trend which I'm sure we'll see once again with the new Republican administration, is that historically, Republican administrations almost always run the deficit up giving massive tax breaks to corporations and all their wealthy doners, and then the next Democratic administration will have to come in and attempt to reduce the deficit spending but get blamed for it being so high, and when they don't reduce it by enough, Republicans use that as a reason to attack them and get themselves back into power to start the cycle all over again with out of control deficit spending for corporations and billionaires pushing their broken trickledown economics and then waiting for Democrats to come in and fix it.
Sometimes, just sometimes, the end justifies the means. And this is a perfect example of that
The spending isn't like it was for the past 4 years. With the money flow to Ukraine and the Paris agreement stopped, it freed up BILLIONS to cover the cost of use of the aircraft and provides training to flight crews.
And the use of the C-17 sends a message. They could be cramming them into C-130Js for an uncomfortable bumpy flight.
Perfect for you perhaps, others seem to have an issue with it. Everyone thinks what they want to spend government money on is justified, this is no different.
So what was the justification for spending billions on programs for illegals instead of citizens?
Palletized seats can be placed in both the C-17 and C-130 increasing their passenger capacities. They will run out of space LONG before they reach any kind of weight limitations and keep the same flight ranges.
I have flown on Hercs both with palletized seats and with nylon strap jump seats. Even for extended flights, the palletized seating in not that uncomfortable whereas the jump seats are. On my numerous trips to and from New Zealand to McMurdo Station, Antarctica all the ski equipped Hercs I rode on were were jump seat equipped. Eight and a half hours flying time each way with passengers packed in like sardines and palletized cargo loads as well. Now that was not comfortable trust me. As long as the Air Force stuck to the minimum passenger requirements, the deportees in the back would probably be okay.
That is such an understatement. On the C-130 the jump seats are far more comfortable, but you put 64 combat equipped jumpers in there, it's tight. As a Jumpmasters on them, we would have to walk across the rucks strapped to the jumpers to get from the forward portion of the aircraft to the paratroop doors in the aft section. In-flight rigging on a Herc was a nightmare. EVERYBODY is air sick.
C-17 there is plenty of space with the jump seats. Palletized seats are the same ones used in the Hercs.
On the LC-130 ski Hercs, when on the way down to the Ice as we called it, I forgot to mention that all passengers are bundled up in heavy duty parkas and other extreme cold weather gear. When palletized cargo is carried as well, it is on the centerline of the cargo bay with all passengers sitting outboard facing the center with room for only 40 people maximum.
Never flown into an environment that needed the LC.
I think the closes I may have is that I've have flown the Herc with palletized cargo and combat gear (body armor, rucks, weapons systems) in Afghanistan. Those combat landings are pure hell when you're dehydrated and air sick.
Saw a lot of people get airsick. C-130's can be rattletraps at times, but imagine them with a set of skis over the landing gear that are not very aerodynamic to begin with. Then factor in flying through the heavy weather and rough Antarctic winds. It is a experience one never forgets. As a added benefit, PSR on a LC-130 bound for McMurdo is halfway there if they have to turn around and head back to New Zealand. On a a C-17 or C-5, it is right over McMurdo!
Are you conveniently forgetting all the flights that Biden made transporting illegals all over the country under cover of darkness? Who paid for that?
Yours and my tax dollars did...
In the long run, a wall would have been cheaper
NYC alone has spent more on illegal aliens than a wall would have cost.
an Uncomfortable military flight ?
C-141 , totally unheated and it has leaks ....least the one i rode in was that way .
The oversized exhaust pipe. Hated flying in those.