If America claims Venezuela as their own do they then deport all Venezuelans as they aren't US citizens in US territory
Executive summary
If the United States were to "claim" or exercise control over Venezuela, it would not automatically have a lawful or simple legal path to deport all Venezuelans from Venezuelan territory; international law, the practical limits of occupation, U.S. domestic law, and commentary from experts all indicate that wholesale expulsion of a population would be illegal, impractical, and politically explosive [1] [2] [3]. Reporting shows U.S. leaders have talked about "running" Venezuela and seizing resources, but legal scholars and international institutions warn that the operation already carried out — the capture of Nicolás Maduro and U.S. military action — raises grave questions about the legality of any annexation or mass population transfer [4] [5] [6].
1. What “running” a country has meant in recent statements and actions
Senior U.S. officials and the White House have publicly said the United States will "run" Venezuela after the capture of Maduro, outlining plans to control oil sales and coordinate with interim authorities to stabilize the country and disburse proceeds from seized resources [4] [7]. Analysts and reporting document U.S. seizures of oil tankers and explicit U.S. plans to sell tens of millions of barrels of Venezuelan oil, signaling economic control efforts rather than formal annexation language in primary statements [4] [8].
2. International law bars annexation by force and mass expulsions
International legal experts and the U.N. have warned that using force to seize territory or leaders and then redrawing borders or expelling populations violates foundational rules of international law; multiple outlets reported that legal scholars called the U.S. operation a dangerous precedent and potentially illegal under international law [1] [2] [3]. The U.N. Secretary-General expressed deep alarm and said rules of international law must be respected after the U.S. military action [9].
3. Deportation is not a free tool of occupying powers under these norms
Even in military occupations, international humanitarian and human rights law restricts forcible transfers and collective expulsions of protected populations; reporting and expert reaction emphasize that capturing a state does not authorize wholesale removal of its citizens, and many commentators cautioned against any measures that would amount to mass displacement [1] [2]. Sources note that the U.S. cannot lawfully redraw sovereignty or expel citizens simply because it exercises temporary control without internationally recognized legal authority [3].
4. U.S. domestic immigration law doesn’t instantly convert for populations in foreign territory
U.S. deportation statutes apply to noncitizens within U.S. jurisdiction; reporting shows the immediate U.S. actions have focused on detaining Maduro and seizing assets rather than processing mass deportations of Venezuelan nationals into or out of U.S. territory, and officials described coordination with interim Venezuelan authorities rather than blanket removal of Venezuelan citizens to the United States [4] [7]. The sources do not claim that U.S. law provides a mechanism for forcibly converting foreign nationals on their own soil into removable migrants.
5. Political and practical limits make mass deportation unworkable
Experts warn that occupying or "running" a country in the modern era faces political resistance, logistical obstacles, and regional backlash; commentary points to fractured militaries, the need for legitimacy and stabilization, and the improbability of a sustainable ground invasion or long-term annexation without massive troop commitments and international isolation [10] [11] [12]. Reporting also emphasizes regional unease and the diplomatic consequences of any attempt to redraw borders or displace millions [12] [9].
6. Alternatives reported by analysts: transitions, reintegration, and targeted prosecutions
Policy analysts cited by Brookings and others argue transitions should rely on civilian legitimacy, conditional amnesties, reintegration of certain military figures, and targeted prosecutions for atrocities — measures aimed at political stabilization rather than demographic engineering or expulsion [10]. Atlantic Council and other experts likewise framed the challenge as one of governance, legal process, and reconstruction rather than deportation [6].
7. Bottom line: claiming a country does not equate to legal license to deport its people
The reporting makes clear that talk of “running” Venezuela and controlling assets is far from a legal or practical mandate to expel Venezuelan citizens en masse; international law, expert legal commentary, and the operational choices observed in reporting all indicate deportation on the scale suggested would be unlawful, logistically fraught, and politically incendiary [1] [2] [4]. Sources do not provide any precedent or legal authority that would permit the U.S. to lawfully seize Venezuelan territory and then deport its population as noncitizens.