The thought-provoking article by Barbadian artist Annalee Davis Thoughts on the ‘Amnesty’, which first appeared in the Stabroek News of 25 May 2009, has drawn attention to the human implications of the treatment of Caricom nationals in Barbados and the alarming rise of anti-Caribbean xenophobia in our region. This must concern everyone who cares about the quality of human and social relations among members of the Caribbean ‘family’ andthe impact on Caribbean integration where it matters most–at the level of ordinary citizens.
Another alarming aspect of developments in Barbados is the risk of ‘tit for tat’.Caricom is the largest single market for Barbadian manufactured exports. Caricom visitors are the second largest category of Barbadian tourism. Barbados derives benefits from being an airline travel hub for the Eastern Caribbean. A large number of regional organisations, with their Caricom staff and dependants, are based in Barbados. Barbados is both recipient and source of foreign investement with the rest of Caricom. Retaliatory actions against Barbados by other Caricom states for perceived uinhumane and discriminatory actions will leave Barbados and the entire Community poorer.
There needs to be a reasoned, region-wide method to handling this question. First, it seems to me that the principle of free movement throughout the Community that is enshrined in the Revised Treaty is quite unrealistic. However, there is no reason why honouring existing commitments in respect of freeing seven occupational categories cannot be maintained. The numbers involved are relatively small. The problem arises with occupations like construction, agriculture and tourism when host economies that have been booming enter a period of recession. Some region-wide management system for this is necessary. And it should be comprehensive in the sense of speaking to several issues. One approach would be to grant temporary work permits for such categories of workers, or a regional guest workers type scheme aimed at filling labour market shortages which may be inherently temporary because of construction ‘booms’.
Second, a consistent and humane approach to exisiting undocumented Caricom nationals must be adopted, if intra-Caribbean human relations at the popular level are not be poisoned for a generation. The proposal of a regionally agreed five-year amnesty for undocumented Caricom nationals from the Coalition for a Humane Amnesty seems to me to be eminently reasonable.
In addition governments, civil society, religious organisations and concerned individuals should actively discourage public expressions of stereotyping, hatred and abuse directed at Caricom nationals. Political parties should also be pressed to subscribe to a Code of Conduct that prohibits the use of such inflammatory statements, which are akin to racism, in election campaigning.
This might seem to be radical and even anti-free speech but if you think about it, there are many precedents. Many countries internationally have laws on the books that criminalise anti-Semitism and other forms of racist abuse; even homophobia. I don’t know how many Caribbean governments would tolerate for long public expressions of blatantly racist sentiments, whether directed at white, black or East Indians or at any other ethnic category. The social, economic and political consequences would be simply unacceptable. In the present circumstances Caricoms from another country are an ‘ethinicity’. We simply cannot have a situation where people are publicly denounced or targeted because they look or dress in a certain way or speak with a particular accent; or are made into a political football, and have no means of defending themselves. Let alone police raids in night clubs, bus stops etc in the dead of night. That is a prescription for a human relations disaster.
We would like to have your comments on this and and on the questions raised by Ms Davis.
And to think Thompson’s wife in Vincentian…. Who would a guessed it?! Owen Arthur’s original wife Jamaican, Erskine Sandiford’s, Richie Haynes’, David Simmons’; in Jamaica PJ patterson’s first(?) wife was Guyanese. Somehow this socialization is of little value in real world politics.
Actually Mark,The Prime Minister’s wife last time I checked was St. Lucian & the Prime Minister himself was born in the UK to Barbados parentage.The problem that is facing Barbados is the vast amounts of illegal immigrants that have accumulated over the last decade from countries of the Caribbean.
This was due in large part to the recklessly laxed immigration policies of the former Prime Minister,Owen Arthur.CSME in Barbados covers only those skilled Caricom nationals in certain categories,NOTHING MORE.The Caricom nationals that have accumulated over the vast time period have overstayed their time in Barbados whether it was on work permits,coming for Crop Over or a short stay visit for whatever reason.The New Government of Barbados is only doing what is necessary & that is to enforce the rule of law concerning the immigration rules.Unlike some of the larger countries Barbados cannot accompany a such large amount of people whether legal or illegal,hence the Prime Minister’s push for a managed migration policy.
A similar situation exists in the Bahamas wrt sentiments held towards (primarily) Jamaican and Haitian migrants ..
As Jay mentions in his(?) post vis-a-vis Barbados, there is a somewhat legitimate concern about migration and availability of work etc. But I often feel as if this concern though a very real one, masks a deeper resentment along lines of culture etc. The culture of the “other” is not viewed in the Bahamas as another beautiful patch on the quilt of West Indian-ness but rather as a foreign invader who threatens everything. Most Bahamians see Jamaican or Haitian food in one light, but French and Italian in quite another .. ditto music, language, dance, art, et.al. As such we gravitate towards the white expatriate from Europe or North America whilst deriding our bonafide domino playing, rum drinking, peas & rice eating brothers and sisters who share the essence of who we ourselves are.
How can we work to promote a common Caribbean identity??
We need a renaissance …
I think the EU has faced similar issues and it is perhaps the best example we can try and consider for ways to address this and to promote regional unity.
Media .. sports .. Media .. Media ..Media .. Education
I believe Barbados is moving in the right direction. However, at the same time I believe that it is also closing off future opportunities for a united Caribbean that has a freedom of citizens to move freely as an economic bloc.
At the same time Barbados must fend for the Barbadians before it can fend for other nationals. The island is a tiny one in itself and must support the Barbadians before it can support the ‘ese’ ‘ians’ and ‘cans’. The government is doing it the correct way and Barbados’ rules and laws on immigration need some serious re-shaping.
I am a strong believer that the Caribbean should be united and be taken as a single group of nations with freedom of mobility to work all over. However, when all movement lands heavily on one island and movement is disporportionate then it becomes very taxing on that particular island. Especially the case when those citizens become illegal.
If the tables were turned and this was happening to another country, they would be right to do the same as the Barbadian government.
ANTIGUA-CARICOM-IMMIGRATION-Opposition accuses government of treating CARICOM nationals “worse than cattle”
CMC Tue, 26 May 2009 17:25:00
Bird says the treatment of CARICOM nationals in Antigua and Barbuda over the past five years has been worst than cattle.
ST. JOHN’S, Antigua, CMC - Opposition Leader Lester Bird has attacked the immigration policy of the ruling Baldwin Spencer administration, saying its treatment of some Caribbean Community (CARICOM) nationals, in particular Guyanese and Jamaicans, over the past five years has been “worst than cattle”.
The Antigua and Barbuda Labour Party (ALP) leader leveled the charge in a statement on Tuesday in which he expressed deep concern over what he called “the appalling expulsion” from the country recently of a Jamaican woman who was eight months pregnant and a Guyanese woman who had been in Antigua for 15 years.
“Neither of these two ladies had a criminal record, and there can be no justification for their expulsion in this manner,” Bird said.
The ALP leader further branded the government’s immigration policy as “clandestine and heartless”, saying he had also received reports of the homes of CARICOM nationals being raided in the middle of the night and people being dragged away and put on planes out of the country without due process.
“If CARICOM nationals are in Antigua and Barbuda illegally, they should undergo a legal process to determine their status and only a Court should determine if they are to be deported. Deportation is a legal process; it is not a matter for executive action only,” Bird said.
He further charged that ruling United Progressive Party (UPP) government has been systematically victimising CARICOM nationals, who have been making a valid contribution to the domestic economy.
“The economy would suffer even more than it is now if the UPP continues this harsh and unnecessary treatment of our CARICOM brothers and sisters.
“The ALP calls on the UPP regime to cease this repressive practice and instead to deal with our CARICOM brethren in the same humane and caring manner that our society has always upheld and we would expect our own nationals to receive abroad,” the statement said.
Bird also said that fully endorsed the positions of two CARICOM Heads of Government, - Prime Minister Ralph Gonsalves of St Vincent and the Grenadines and President Bharrat Jagdeo of Guyana - who have condemned the callous treatment of CARICOM nationals in certain CARICOM countries.
His comments come at the height of heated debate in the region on the vexed issue of CARICOM migration.
Prime Minister Spencer is yet to respond to the opposition leader’s charges.
CMC kj/09
Talal Noumeh said
However, when all movement lands heavily on one island and movement is disporportionate then it becomes very taxing on that particular island. Especially the case when those citizens become illegal.
—————————————–
You’re exactly right,Imo it is absolutely impossible that a mainly tourism based economy can be considered “xenophobic” by some when since that economy would die very quickly.Those that come under the CSME scheme in Barbados are legal immigrants & therefore do not have anything to worry about concerning the P.M.’s immigration enforcement actions.
The problem in Barbados lies with scrupulous employers & foreign nationals whom are taken advantage of by the strong Barbados dollar mainly in the construction & agriculture sectors where the employees do not return home when their time has expired & are likely illegally residing in the country & the employers are probably also forcing some of them to work with threat of deportation.I think the following article can best explain the situation.
http://www.barbadosadvocate.com/newsitem.asp?more=local&NewsID=3895
“CSME not responsible for illegal immigrants
5/27/2009
By Nicholas Cox
THE CARICOM Single Market and Economy (CSME) is not responsible for the influx of illegal foreign residents in Barbados.
Instead, serious deficiencies at the Immigration Department, such as the absence of
controls to monitor the number of illegal residents and inadequate staffing in the section responsible for enforcement have been blamed. This is according to a special audit of the Immigration Department that was included in the Auditor General’s Report 2008.
The audit revealed that only 328 persons have applied for resident status under the freedom of movement provisions since 2001, while 33 businesses have been established under CSME in Barbados during the same period.
“The influx of CARICOM nationals into the country has not been greatly affected by Barbados’ commitment under the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas. This influx of CARICOM nationals was seen mostly in the agricultural and construction sectors, for which work permits are required,” the report said.
Lack of monitoring
One problem that was identified was the lack of monitoring to determine if people who were denied work permits actually left Barbados. Noting the importance of having accurate information on visitors, the special audit said, “It would be expected that the Immigration Department would have a system in place which would record all the relevant information on persons entering and leaving the country.” However, this was not the case, and the audit stressed that there was no evidence to suggest reports on the number of people remaining in Barbados without permission were ever requested.
Calling for better management systems for the at the Department and for reports of people staying in Barbados without permission, the audit stressed, “The lack of adequate monitoring of, and enforcement action against persons who overstayed their visit, has led to a growing but unknown number of persons who remain in Barbados without the permission of the Immigration Department”.
The report also noted that it was unclear whether the 3 916 people who had been refused work permits, extensions, and visa applications between 2006 – 2008 had left the island voluntarily, or whether a clear basis had been established for the 15 803 permits issued for mostly the agricultural and construction sectors.
Employers guilty
Moreover, it was believed that employers were facilitating illegal immigrants somewhat since, according to the report, “employers were hiring persons who were in the island illegally and applying for work permits on their behalf” and “many of these applications were favourable considered and approved” while the supporting documents were often not submitted, the audit noted.
The report recommended better enforcement procedures to integrate to the application process as well as a constantly updated listing of overstays.
The audit also highlighted the need for more officers in the Investigation Section, noting that it has been unable to carry out its mandate successfully.
“In order to ensure that the Immigration laws of the country are complied with, a major effort should be undertaken to halt the flow of illegal immigrants, and to account for those persons currently in the island without the permission,” it concluded.”
————————————————————
Barbados will likely continue to feel a lot of heat on this issue from some Caricom countries,but if you look closely you’ll know why.SVG nationals & Guyanese nationals are considered the majority groups amongst the illegal immigration population in Barbados.
The government must find a better way to deal with this;this is not America or Australia or UAE.It is clear Bajans in North America and Europe are not comunicating what is going on with us in these other countries.
The government of Barbados must hold it’s self to a much higher standard.
Hartley
I wonder to what extent some of the disturbing trends observed Annalee Davis (the intensified nationalism and insularity of ‘Team Barbados’, the de-humanization of workers and their families, etc), are actually by-products of the type of integration facilitated by the CSME? The CSME doesn’t appear to me as an initiative intended to foster progressive or social democratic objectives for the region. It’s much more neo-liberal and involves a range of policies designed to manage the region and its population, which might, in varying ways, be expected to foster the sort of xenophobia being discussed here. Designating who is free to move, for instance, requires that those not granted such a right by the Revised Treaty are also marked out, made visible and legally designated. We see comments here suggesting Barbados is ‘just doing what is required’ and reports of audits indicating the need for better immigration management systems and monitoring procedures - all of which presumably set out more stringent and practical means for identifying who’s in and out. I’m in no way excusing the practices being discussed here, merely wondering if they reflect less a rejection of integration and more an engagement with a certain way of conceiving of it.
All states have a legal and sovereign right to protect their national interests, and Barbados as well as any other CARICOM Member State possesses this basic right. There is little doubt that the issue of free movement of CARICOM nationals and broader migration issues are problematic.
There is increasing attention placed on issues of migration (i.e. legal and illegal) because it is a complex phenomenon that straddles several spheres of cultural, social, economic, political, and geopolitical domains among others. Yet, one must ask who really is a migrant?
Most countries, and I have not heard anything to suggest that Barbados is a dissenting voice, accepts the United Nations’ definition that a migrant is someone living outside their own county for a year or more.
There is a clear global trend by academics and policymakers whereby the language used in this sensitive arena of migration is becoming less gaudy. There is a moral and ethical argument which contends that “by defining people as ‘illegal’ denies their humanity: a human being cannot be illegal.”
Two examples illustrate a move to reduce ambiguity and to situate discourses on migration within a more precise context:
1. Many of those we call irregular migrants started their journey perfectly legally, for example, by arriving on a tourist visa or permit, and later became “illegal” or “irregular” when they stayed on after its validity expired. Hence, irregular or undocumented is becoming the more preferred terms for addressing the traditional categorisation of illegal migrant.
2. Secondly, governments and their policymakers are treating irregular migration as a problem to be managed rather than to be controlled. Evidence from the international suggests that it is more practical and less economically cumbersome to attempt management and cooperation than to revert to the illusion of policing and control.
I should point out that:
1. The thrust to discourage irregular migrants in Barbados is popular and permissible.
2. Prime Minister Thompson and Ministers of Government in Barbados have expressed that the Immigration Department and the immigration policies are in need of substantial reform.
3. The stated amnesty appears to be the beginning of an action plan toward achieving internal migration control.
Essentially, irregular migration is set up around three focal points. There is legal and illegal entry, legal and illegal residence, and legal and illegal employment.
I ask three (4) questions:
1. How much information has the Barbados Government supplied in recognition that these categories of legality and illegality coexists within the domain of immigration debates?
2. Should the focus be on limiting those persons who may have normally qualified under the amnesty framework which has been in place as far back as 1995, or should emphasis be on finding solutions to the problems identified as requiring reform at the domestic level of the agency responsible for internal migration control?
3. Would it not make more political currency to engage the public in Barbados, civil society, and regional publics such as corresponding Heads of Government on probable solutions to the problems that cause irregular migration and insecurity?
4. Do Barbados and/or other CARICOM Member States have a moral duty and ethical challenge to ensure the humane treatment of Caribbean peoples?
The recent amnesty as articulated by Prime Minister Thompson falls somewhat short of the accepted and humane treatment Barbadians would come to expect from the outside world in relation to Barbadian citizens.
Equally telling are the wider ambit of Caribbean regional integration ambitions, and the further upholding of international conventions on human rights. This situation becomes pertinent with regards to the treatment of non-citizens (documented and undocumented).
Is the Prime Minister of Barbados aware that Barbados is signatory to a convention stating that it will:
• Ensure that laws concerning deportation or other forms of removal of non-citizens from the jurisdiction of the State party do not discriminate in purpose or effect among non-citizens on the basis of race, colour or ethnic or national origin, and that non-citizens have equal access to effective remedies, including the right to challenge expulsion orders, and are allowed effectively to pursue such remedies.
It appears that insufficient consideration has been given by the Thompson-led administration with respect to Barbados’ position on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
It is clear that international institutions and agencies such as the United Nations, the International Organisation on Migration, and the International Labour Organisation recognise that migration on a whole presents challenges. For example, the guiding principle of the IOM is that humane and orderly migration can benefit migrants as well as the countries they come from and the societies that host them.
There are negative results when we brand the Caribbean migrant (i.e. documented or irregular) as unwanted. This is notwithstanding that these persons have gained employment (and many are exploited in the labour market) thereby contributing to the national economy as economic inputs and as consumers.
The very goal of eliminating exploitation, being able to ensure the rights of CARICOM immigrants, and the capacity for the government to trace, identify, and extradite the irregular immigrant, becomes problematic.
Not so much that there is an unusual period attached to the amnesty (i.e. from 5 years to 11 ½ years), but because the Prime Minister himself has stated that “after the qualifying period has expired, those CARICOM nationals without lawful permission to remain in the island will be removed.”
It is this threat that has opened another area of fear for the CARICOM immigrant who is already under pressure and who is targeted notwithstanding that such policy measures ought to be non-discriminatory and conducted within the parameters of basic inalienable human rights.
The Prime Minister’s posture appears unsympathetic especially in the context of CARICOM and the objectives of the CSME as outlined in the preamble to the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas. While his intentions may be sound and sit well with many popular sentiments, there is certainly room for consideration on the unwritten understandings that would be in keeping with Caribbean Community citizens, vis-à-vis nationals from those third countries whose origins lie beyond the single market.
A certain repercussion is that those CARICOM immigrants, who were visible as they went about their daily activities, will do more to stay out of sight and possibly use social networks to obscure his or her identity.
Hence, it is very probable that the amnesty may have a reverse effect by pushing persons underground. A major problem is that by not providing substantiation or by misrepresenting the evidence criminalises and demonises all irregular migrants.
The encouragement for irregular migrants, rather than face ridicule, is to remain underground. Irregular migrants, who are anxious to stay out of sight, pose a problem for the government which is already demonstrating a fanaticism to reclaim levels of administration and control.
When this occurs, it is the ordinary Barbadian vendor, shopkeeper, small service provider, and those who can least afford fallout from declining economic activity that will bear the brunt of this leakage from the national economy.
Surely this is not the intention of the Barbados Government. In the absence of stating empirically the net contributions of the CARICOM immigrant population to the Barbados economy, or providing at least reasonable estimates on the social and economic costs that Barbadians will forbear, it appears even more premature that the new amnesty policy and accompanying actions of the Barbados Government will foster resentment.
Resultant antipathy will not necessarily be built on xenophobia but it will be constructed more on the certain ignorance of the facts. There is already a growing sense that the amnesty may also culminate in tit-for-tat actions among CARICOM Member States.
We have to address issues of citizenship, public interest, discrimination, and uphold best practices that speak to the rights of non-citizens and especially CARICOM nationals. It is much more than legal arguments of right and wrong; there are underlying moral and ethical concerns that cannot be left adrift because a government thinks it best for purposes of political expediency or longevity.
Re George Brathwaite’s comment: I think it is good and salutary, to put the issue in the wider moral, ethical and international context– as distinct from the narrowly juridical parameters behind which the Barbados Government may justify the legality of its actions.
However, getting nearer to home, as I mentioned before, should we not put more emphasis on the expectation and understanding that States will behave in a reasonable, responsible and decent manner by honoring the spirit of the commitments they have undertaken in the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas (RTC) , and that they will seek the resolution of issues according to the agreed understandings in that Treaty.
Article 45 of the RTC states “member States commit themselves to the goal of the free movement of their nationals within the Community”.
Among the dispute resolutions provisions in the RTC is Article 189 which states that “Where a dispute arises between Member States, the parties shall proceed expeditiously to an exchange of views for the purpose of agreeing on: (a) a mode of settlement and where an agreed mode has been terminated, to another mode of settlement ; or (b) a mutually satisfactory method of implementation where a settlement has been reached and the circumstances require consultation regarding its implementation.”
Most likely the Barbados Government feels that it has real problems, real costs, arising from growing undocumented residence and employment of CARICOM nationals in Barbados, especially at a time of economic downturn. That may be their perception, whether it is empirically justified, or not. But given the above commitments in the RTC it is the only reasonable, decent, and responsible thing for the Government to do to avail itself of those means of resolving problems that spill over into/ affect the wider Community by consultation and dialogue with the Partners with whom their share the aspirations of that Community.
Surely it is not beyond the capacities of Barbados,Guyana, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Jamaica and Antigua and others to work out in a humane and civil manner ways of dealing this problem that preserves confidence in the Community and safeguards legitimate national interest.
Dear fellow contibutors,
Is there any space in this debate on immigration policy to examine again what is actually at stake on the base line?
-The need for all people to travel in an orderly fashion wherever the feeling takes them and in an orderly fashion, to reside there.
-The right of all ones born in a place to choose to live there in peace and safety.
-The desire of all human beings, native and immigrant, to daily enact and encounter their familiar culture.
-The commandment to succor the stranger and observe nuff respect for the ones you come and find, which is the same as succoring the stranger.
-And hell, who wants to be called both docile and zenophobic, not to mention ethnic eradicator.
I lived in Hong Kong for about 30 days and after a while, longed for short buildings and less people. As everyone knows, Hong Kong is the developed industrialised country of the two system country of China Hong Kong. Many Chinese from the mainland as well as other ethnics from the region are attracted there (and now also Americans). I only visited about three sections of mainland China, but the buildings all seemed far shorter than those in Hong Kong. The Chinese Hong Kong people, perhaps of the middle classes, all speak of “more livable cities” than Hong Kong.
I am afraid I see Barbados becoming like Hong Kong without, unpopular to me, more controlled migration . A lovely, often sterile overcrowded city with people living miles above each other. At the same time, I would grant a general amnesty and institute better regulations at the Barbados borders. I can do this without violating Chaguramas or the future of my Barbadian born offspring, surely.
Guidance,
Margaret Kawamuinyo
The Title of Norman Girvan’s article, begs the question of him “What have you done to confront it?” It is amazing to me, that these so-called regionalistS have spent the last 40 years on concepts, policies, agreements, etc, all focus on bringing the Citizens of the English speaking Caribbean, and Guyana together, and have never once, in a meaningfull way, sought the opinions of the very people who will have to live this forced, socially engineered integration?
George Braithwaite accused Barbadians of “clinging to their colonial past” and I wondered how could this be? How different is the current exercise of “Force Integration” from whaT pertained under the colonial experience? Could it not be argued that it is the regionalists who are clinging to their colonial past and not us Barbadians? I think so!
I view this “Force Integration” no different, than what occurred with Colonization. Then as it is now, the people have had no say. Then as it may have been, I do not NOW intend for my children to grow up stupid under yet another “union” flag.