COALITION FOR A HUMANE AMNESTY
PRESS RELEASE
THE “REAL” IMMIGRATION PROBLEM IN BARBADOS!
There are thousands of Barbadians, who, having travelled to the U.S.A, overstayed their time, and are now in the process of working on getting their “green cards”. With 6 or 7 years of residence in the U.S.A under their belts, these Bajans have evolved into ‘Bajan-Yankees’, and we would be appalled if the U.S government suddenly started deporting them.
Yet, that is precisely what our Government is doing to ‘Guyanese-Bajans’ and ‘Vincey-Bajans’ in our midst! Our Immigration officers are raiding the homes and work-places of Guyanese and Vincentians who have been living in Barbados for 7 and 8 years, arresting them and putting them on the first flight out of Barbados. And several of these persons are the parents of children born in Barbados, and the owners of bank accounts and other forms of property in Barbados!
Most ordinary Barbadians are not aware that this is happening. Indeed, the Barbadian people have been so misled, that they believe that our Government has given all undocumented or ‘illegal’ Caribbean residents a six month period of time within which to go into the Immigration Department and regularize their immigration status. This is simply not true!
Admittedly, the Barbados government has advised undocumented’ Caribbean migrants that they are required to go into the Immigration Department between 1st June and 1st December 2009, but, they have warned that the only people who have a chance of being accepted are those who came to Barbados before the 1st of January 1998 - almost 12 years ago. All of the others will therefore be subjected to the very real likelihood of deportation! And the Immigration Department has not waited until the 1st of December 2009 to start deporting people! Indeed, they have already commenced a heartless campaign of arrest and deportation.
THE OLD FIVE YEAR AMNESTY
This inhumane approach to our Caribbean brothers and sisters may be contrasted with the progressive and constructive policy that was pursued by the previous Administration.
The previous government had a policy under which undocumented or ‘illegal’ CARICOM migrants who had resided in Barbados for 5 or more years, were permitted to come forward and apply for Immigrant Status. And once they were able to demonstrate to the Immigration authorities that they were gainfully employed, had no criminal record, and were likely to make a constructive contribution to our society, they were accepted.
Furthermore, if they failed to convince the Immigration Department and were rejected, they were given a right of appeal to an “Immigration Review Committee” chaired by a Minister of Government. If they failed to convince this Committee, they would then be ordered to leave Barbados.
This was a good policy, because it came to the rescue of persons who had become ‘Barbadianised’, and had become part of Barbadian society. Deporting such persons simply did not help anybody, and a wise Barbados government acknowledged this.
Barbados has never had a problem with this “five year amnesty” policy! Indeed, it was a good and humane policy and should be reinstated!
THE NEW SITUATION
The ‘real’ problem with the immigration situation in Barbados is that the traditional and long-standing exchange of migrants between Barbados and Guyana evolved into a ‘migrant labour phenomenon’ over the past decade, but the government of Barbados failed to acknowledge this new development, and therefore also failed to establish a formal ‘migrant labour programme’ with appropriate controls and administrative structures.
The reality is that the Barbadian economy and society has evolved in such a manner that the present generation of native Barbadians is no longer attracted to the physically taxing and repetitive labour of the agricultural, manual and low level service jobs that their parents and grand-parents were prepared to do!
Over the past decade or so therefore, the Barbadian economy has come to rely on imported Guyanese workers to perform essential but unwanted jobs in agriculture, construction, care of the elderly, and a range of low level services. This has helped Barbados to maintain strength and efficiency in these vital areas of its economy, and this, in turn, contributed to the maintenance of an overall strong economy in which the unemployment rate dropped to the historically low level of 6 per cent. In other words, the presence of Guyanese migrant workers in Barbados has not caused the unemployment of native Barbadians!
The belief that the quantity of employment available in Barbados is of a fixed nature and that migrant workers from Guyana simply take the jobs of existing Barbadian workers, is absolutely wrong! The fact is that the Barbadian economy has expanded along with the growth in the labour force! Indeed, our economy would be smaller, with lower per capita income, without our imported Guyanese, Vincentian and St Lucian labour!
However, rather than allowing needed migrant workers from Guyana to come to Barbados in an ad hoc manner, we need to put a formal ‘migrant labour programme’ in place, and run it properly! This is what our new government should be doing - not running down and deporting 5, 6, 7 and 8 year residents of Barbados!
THE SOLUTION
Our government is inflicting unnecessary damage on both the image and the economy of Barbados, with their inhumane and myopic immigration policy. Our organisation - the “Coalition For A Humane Amnesty“- therefore asks all Barbadians to join with us in insisting upon a reinstatement of the ‘five year amnesty’ policy, and the establishment of a formal, structured ‘migrant labour programme’ for guest workers from the CARICOM sub-region.
If you are interested in our campaign, please contact us at the Clement Payne Centre, Crumpton Street, Bridgetown, Barbados (Tel 246 435 2334;
e-mail: clementpaynechambers@gmail.com)
Definitely diatribe,I LIVE in the US & there is definitely NO 5 year immigration amnesty here if that is what Mr.Comissiong is saying.I have heard almost ALL the immigration stories here from persons who entered the country from as young as 6 months old & now in the mid-twenties to Pregnant women even losing their children during the Deportation process & even some whom have lived in the country as long as ~27 years still trying to fight for their status.It is not to say that everyone doesn’t have a story & that I don’t sympathize with some,but it is a Government’s mandate to enforce the law.
The one thing that ALL of these people had in common was that they were illegal & sooner or later were going to deported because they knew the risk associated with being in a country illegally.Why should Barbados be any different ?If you know your status is not up to date with the relevant authorities,LEAVE the country.
The Barbados authorities are FINALLY doing the right thing as it pertains to immigration instead of being laxed concerning the laws that they were by de-facto were suppose to enforce.It is the Government’s right & the majority of Bajans wish that the Immigration enforcement continue.
David Commissiong needs to explain to the people that he is inviting to join him in his fight, why they should trust him. He needs to tell them why he had differing views back in 2005 http://www.normangirvan.info/open-letter-to-caricom-prime-ministers-on-the-immigration-crisis/#comment-3701 from what he is now saying. What is in it for you Mr. Commisiong? Your credibility stock amongst Bajans took a significant hit as a result of your willingness to broadcast to the world downright untruths about the handling of the so called Africans tourist and business people who where purportedly stranded in Barbados. I too live in the US, and have been living here since 1993, I know that I will be hard press to find these THOUSANDS OF BAJAN without status or awaiting status, but I will commence my search nevertheless. Since I have been, hear they have been at least three changes in immigration laws that extended the opportunity for persons to regularize themselves. In all of them if you did not avail yourself of the amnesty period and started the process of regularizing your status you were deemed out of status, and therefore subject to removal. Please Mr. Commissiong, do not pretend to know or care what Barbadians are faring in the big bad Satan of America. For us America is a blessing, for you America is a burden to the world. This new tactic of suddenly appearing to be concern about and for Barbadians living in the North American Diaspora will fail. I do expect to see the services of Tony Best called to further the spread “dread” to Barbadians on the rock. At any rate, I can argue that the last 14 years are any measure for sentiment in Barbados for returning Nationals. There was a real reason why the Prime Minister said the following in his Budget of 2008
“We need, as a matter of urgency, to restore the relationship between
us and the tens of thousands of Barbadians living overseas. My
administration views the Diaspora as an integral part of the
economic, social and cultural development of Barbados and is
determined to create a comprehensive strategy for engaging them.
The original Charter for Returning Nationals, building on the policy
established by the Democratic Labour Party in 1991, set in place a
series of concessions to encourage Barbadians abroad to resettle
here on retirement.”
I think the real fight should take place in the complaining countries, countries that have not in any way sought to provide their citizens with any other opportunity other than the hope of mass emigration and for those staying, a dependency on aid and debt relief.
If Barbadians through their own astute actions and not altogether incompetent governments have provided a standard of living that is way ahead of what the others have achieved, that bestows no obligation on the part of Barbados to do likewise for those laggards, many of them with vastly more natural resources than Barbados and relatively huge in land mass terms.
What do they think Barbados owes them or is responsible for in their lack of foresight, action and progress?
What can they afford Barbadians quid pro quo? … A big fat NOTHING is the answer, yet they seek the holy grail of emigrating to Barbados - Barbados owes them? - I don’t think so - let them seek some other bolt hole to escape their sorry plight.
If it weren’t tragic, it would be funny - A Guyanese government minister flying in to Barbados to enquire why work permits for Guyanese were so slow in being issued, a Nigerian government minister jetting into Barbados to assure them of the health of 3 nurses and Nigeria is the 4th. or 5th. largest oil producer on the planet.
Mass immigration will bring Barbados down to the woefully low state of those countries - Take a long hard look at Britain and see what I mean.
Ok well let me spell it out in simple terms and see if there is some kind of understanding.
These are good reasons:
Domestic Help: Many foreign individuals are willing to work for below minimum wage, cutting off some percentage of our possibility for employing locals targeting this avenue of employment.
Skilled Labour (Carpenters, Masons etc.): Yes we can accomodate some but it has to be controlled. We cannot control if entry into Barbados is a free-for-all & stay and work as long as you like.
Crime: Not all non nationals are criminals but we have a very small group who come in, execute their plans and leave to return again, illegally extending their stay each time.
And Now The Killer -
Medical Services: Are we aware that some HIV infected non nationals are comming to Barbados to get Free Medication. An ID card is required and if you dont have one but can satisfy the local medical authorities that you have no means of paying for the drugs, then it becomes free.
If a young lady get pregnant in Barbados and is tested as positive for HIV, both the mother and child get the “Free” medication.
Medical Support for each individual works out at 400.00/day.
So lets not wonder why we cant start to pay income tax returns and its June, why all of the pot holes in the road cant be fixed immediately and a hosts of other things which cannot be done.
What is being done now is to regularize the system and it can only be done with harsh measures.
I challenge anyone to tell me that if immigration found individuals and did not deport them but told them to leave in 1, 2, 3 or 4 weeks, that they would actually leave. They would go back into the cracks and not be found for a while.
I am for the current system of regularization. If you overstayed 1 day, then you have broken the Law, you are a criminal.
PS: lets start prosecuting the employers of illegal immigrants also.
I fully support the government of Barbados with respect to the immigration policy they are currently implementing. If it were one where a a substancial subset of documented Caricom nationals were being persecuted, I would have pause to such a move and would also speak out to such a cause.
However, this is not the case. The rounding up of illegal immigrants whether here for 8, 5 or even 1 year is a process which could not come at a sooner time. All over the world, many countries with vast more resources than Barbados are tightening their immigration policies and are being aggressive in rounding up illegal immigrants. Additionally, the mention of potentially illegal ‘Bajans’ in the USA has no bearing on this matter. As the saying goes ‘Two wrongs do not make a right’.
On the matter of illegals having children born in Barbados, this is a non issue. Did the writer know that in many international countries, even though you are born in a country, you are only entitled to its citizenship if either of your parents are their legally??? As such, both parents and children should be rounded up where neccessary.
And let’s be honest… illegal immigrants take just as much or more than they give as many in order to stay below the radar are paid in cash (thus no taxes paid), send much money to their home country and in some cases, resort to crime. Yet these folks make use of B’dos services such as education, health care, etc.
Bottom line, B’dos will not get a ‘bad’ image from these actions as the international world recognises the need for such responses and as Barbados is even granting an Ammesty period, it should be recognised we are doing more than most.
Luckily most Barbadians have actual working brains so before the writer babbles scenarios (e.g. thousands of illegal Bajans), he should provide some facts and references so we as objectively consider his words for more than mere ramblings.
Following is the Editorial in the Jamaica Observer of 23/06/09
http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/editorial/html/20090622T180000-0500_153980_OBS_INSTEAD_OF_INSULTING_CARICOM__PRIME_MINISTER_THOMPSON_.asp
Editorials
Instead of insulting Caricom, Prime Minister Thompson.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
How Prime Minister David Thompson relates to his counterparts when they sit at the same table at the Caricom Heads of Government Summit in Guyana next week will be very interesting.
For in effect, what Prime Minister Thompson really told those Caribbean leaders who, dare we say, had the effrontery to comment on Barbados’ new immigration policy is to shut their damn mouths and mind their own business.
The Caribbean Media Corporation last week reported Prime Minister Thompson as saying: “There seems to be a mad rush now for everybody to say something new. I have announced a domestic immigration policy that is not a matter for other Caribbean prime ministers to comment on.”
Prime Minister Thompson was, of course, referring to a six-month amnesty his administration has enforced on Caricom nationals living in Barbados illegally to regularise their status or face deportation.
Frankly, he’s within his right to do so, as he has a duty to protect his country and its citizens. He therefore cannot allow Barbados to become overrun with illegal immigrants.
However, news reports - and they have not been denied by Prime Minister Thompson or anyone in his administration - have informed us of the inhumane treatment accorded by the Barbadian authorities to Caribbean nationals deemed to be living in that Caricom member country illegally.
In fact, the treatment has been so hostile that the Barbadian opposition leader, Ms Mia Mottley, was forced to call on the Government to “correct the unfortunate reputation that Barbados is rapidly developing” because of the new immigration policy.
“The focus must be simply those who have arrived and who have never been documented,” Ms Mottley said. She went further, arguing that when people are asked to leave they should be “given the time to pack up their belongings and leave in a manner that does not reduce them to feeling like criminals”.
We couldn’t agree with her more. Just as we share the concerns raised by Guyana’s President Bharrat Jagdeo and Prime Minister Ralph Gonsalves of St Vincent and the Grenadines.
President Jagdeo spoke out about the roughing up before deportation of Guyanese by Barbadian immigration authorities, while Prime Minister Gonsalves said the policy flies in the face of the spirit of Caricom.
Under the revised Treaty of Chaguaramas, Caricom member states had pledged to honour the unrestricted movement of capital, labour and technology throughout the region. The agreement also requires member states committed to the full implementation of the Caricom Single Market and Economy to establish conditions to facilitate access by their nationals to the collective resources of the region on a non-discriminatory basis.
It seems to us that instead of insulting his Caricom colleagues because they expressed concern about the inhospitable treatment their countrymen received in Barbados, Prime Minister Thompson should have instructed his police and immigration officers to treat the people they have apprehended with a level of decency and respect for the fact that they are human beings and not beasts.
The Gestapo-like rounding up and deportation of Caricom nationals is, we believe, more damaging to the objectives of Caricom rather than, according to Prime Minister Thompson, “a scenario where everybody is seeking to say something”.
Prime Minister Thompson therefore needs to tell us whether Barbados is committed to Caricom and the agreements forged between member states
[ The following commentary was forwarded to me--Norman]
CARICOM’s DREAM CAN BE A NIGHTMARE FOR SMALLER COUNTRIES
By G. A. Dwyer Astaphan
http://www.sknvibes.com/Commentary/Index.cfm/383
There seems to come a time in the affairs of every developing country when its citizens start to develop a sense of deep concern and insecurity with regard to foreigners coming in and taking up jobs and doing business.
At least, that has been the Caribbean experience in modern times.
We know that the history of the Caribbean is punctuated by migration.
And we are essentially a region of immigrants, most of who have their roots in slavery or indenture.
In addition to the inward migration, there has been much internal (intra-regional) migration, with workers (especially) moving from territories of lesser, to territories of greater, opportunity.
This movement of workers has served, not only to assist with manpower resources and economic development in the already better-performing territories, but also to relieve the social, economic and political pressure in the under-performing home territories of the immigrants.
Major regional recipients of migrants over the past 100 years or so have been Panama, Cuba, and the Dominican Republic ( earlier on), and Trinidad, Puerto Rico, the USVI, the BVI, St. Maarten, Anguilla, Antigua, Barbados, St. Lucia, St.Kitts & Nevis and the Cayman Islands (more latterly).
And, of course, over the past 60 years or so, there has also been a mass exodus to the United Kingdom, France, Holland, the USA and Canada, in search of a better life.
However, over the years, as it became more difficult for Caribbean people to migrate to Europe, North America and the US and UK Virgin Islands (and St. Maarten seems to be tightening up too), greater pressure has been exerted on the failing Caribbean economies to stay afloat and avert disaster and on the better-performing Caribbean economies to receive migrants from their under-performing counterparts.
And let us not forget the relatively recent matter of the large number of deportees from the USA, a number which is likely to increase under President Obama.
We should note that the larger their number, the more difficult it is going to be for them to assimilate into societies of which they know little. So there will be an increased risk of them engaging in criminal activity, thus exacerbating an already awful crime situation in those countries. This will only further drive frightened law-abiding citizens to find an exit route, and it will create even more pressure on the better performing Caribbean territories.
In fact, this pressure has already become institutionalized within the framework of the CARICOM arrangements which, inter alia, are intent upon merging all of the economies into a single one that allows free movement of capital and labour.
Interestingly, however, as I write this piece I am unable to recall any CARICOM member state having a referendum for its people to decide upon these matters of free movement. Maybe it has happened, but right now I cannot recall it.
Instead, what has happened is that leaders and some experts have been declaring that their proposed single economic space with free movement of capital and labour is the only salvation for the region.
Especially leaders of countries which, because of their own chronic under-performance, rely on their citizens’ ability to migrate in order to help avert further instability and chaos at home.
But here is a question.
If the people could enjoy better economic, social and political circumstances at home, wouldn’t less of them want to migrate? After all, home is home!
So would it not be better for all concerned if, in addition to better leadership coming from governments and other stakeholder groups in countries like Haiti, The Dominican Republic, Jamaica and Guyana, there could be a special, sensible and compassionate effort by the region, by the various international institutions and by the G-8 countries to transform and stabilize those four larger Caribbean nations instead of emptying them of their populations which they would desperately need in order to recover, grow and stabilize?
Would it not be fairer if smaller, better governed and better performing, but also very fragile and vulnerable countries such as Antigua & Barbuda, Barbados, St. Lucia and St.Kitts & Nevis were not put under all of this pressure of having to take up burdens on their physical and social infrastructures, created in no small measure by mismanagement in, and in relation to, the larger countries of the region?
How can free movement of capital and labour be beneficial to these smaller islands in the prevailing conditions of the region?
Is it not better to be supportive of movement, but only on a managed basis, as Barbados’ Prime Minister, David Thompson, is advocating?
Already Antiguans, St. Lucians, and Kittitians and Nevisians, like Barbadians, are developing anger and resentment over their perception that jobs and other opportunities in the lands of their birth are being taken away from them by foreigners.
Already they are saying that politicians, having lost the goodwill of many citizens, are courting CARICOM immigrants and using them, where their numbers are critical (and it does not take a lot in a small place), in order to get, or to hold on to, power.
Already many people in these smaller islands have begun to feel cheated.
For example, Kittitians are very upset at the thought of themselves, their relatives or friends, being laid off from their jobs, or even unable to get jobs, while they see foreigners, both from CARICOM countries and beyond, ‘making a bread’ here in St.Kitts doing the same or similar jobs.
They are fuming mad when they see foreigners who are studying at universities here in St.Kitts holding down jobs, and getting away with, with or without work permits, while they, the locals, go unemployed.
And speaking of foreign students, happy as we all are to have them, and we want more of them to come, many, many homeowners who depend on the rents from these students to maintain their mortgages are expressing deep concern over the fact that local hotels at Frigate Bay have opened up their rooms to students on long-term rentals, thereby depriving the homeowners of critical rental income.
The homeowners understand the economic crunch, and they want the hotels to remain open, but they feel exposed and vulnerable. And they want explanations and assurances. They feel that without guidance, they could lose their homes, and a crisis could develop.
But let me go back to the CARICOM thing.
While free movement of labour is of concern, so too is the matter of free movement of capital, and what is referred to as “rights of settlement” whereby a business from any country can essentially set up shop in any other country, and do so on an equal footing with a local company.
This could be a formula for death and destruction for enterprises in the smaller islands, especially smaller enterprises, because not only will they be unable to compete in their own countries, but they feel that they cannot, and will not, get a fair shot at the market in Trinidad, Jamaica and so on.
CARICOM’s dream is at risk of turning turn into a nightmare for the smaller countries, and on its present path, it can create a level playing field, yes, but a level playing field of losers, bringing down surging, smaller countries to the level of the rest.
The people and the businesses in the smaller Caribbean territories are under a lot of pressure. And it seems that they cannot take much more.
And quite apart from CARICOM, we see local businesses in some of these small countries already acing collapse, as developers and others from outside of the region move in and crowd them out of a living.
Let us look, for example, at the heavy equipment business in St. Kitts.
At least one provider has a ‘for sale’ sign on some of his equipment.
He and his colleagues are being put to a disadvantage, because whereas they have to pay duty on their equipment and spare parts, the developers do not. This inequity renders our locals uncompetitive, and such an arrangement is simply untenable, especially in a man’s own country.
The developers bring in their equipment, they retool when necessary( duty free, of course),and they also bring in operators, which further deprives local operators from getting work and it also discourages young locals from becoming operators.
So what ought to be a situation of growth opportunity for locals with these developments is turning out to be quite the opposite, as locals are blocked out of the action, whether as contractors, (or sub-contractors) or as operators, mechanics, etc.
It is also reported that developers sometimes bring in somewhat defective equipment, upgrade it with duty free parts, and after some use, send it back home (where duty free concessions are not available) in an improved condition and with a higher value.
It seems to be that the prudent and fair thing for Government to do is to revisit its policy and also the arrangements governing all present projects which utilize heavy equipment, in order to give our local businesses a chance to stay afloat, and in order to keep the sector strong and to maximize economic and social local value added from these projects.
The developers would pay less, and the locals would earn, and learn, more.
Indeed, as a general principle, when developers engage our government in talks, they should always be told that certain aspects of the works must be reserved for locals.
In my opinion, and I am not xenophobic or in any way bigoted, there are too many businesses being conducted by foreigners that can and should be reserved for locals.
As a proud, little developing country, we have to ensure that our people, who are our major investment and our major hope, are empowered in the process of designing and building the new economy.
If it is not to be that way, then why are we wasting time educating and nurturing our children?
Because they will not get their fair chance at jobs and as entrepreneurs in the land of their birth.
The people of this country are now at the stage where they are deeply concerned about these things. And that is not a good thing. Positive action is required.
Until Next Time, Plenty Peace.
New York Caribbean Institute says Barbados immigration practices repugnant to CARICOM
BROOKLYN, NEW YORK: The Guyanese-American President of the New York based Caribbean Guyana Institute for Democracy (CGID), Rickford Burke, has said that Barbados’s new immigration policy is “divisive” and “supercilious,” and undermines the Caribbean Community.”
“The extant immigration practices in Barbados lack careful thought, have been fundamentally discriminatory and are antithetical to the values of the integration movement,” Burke asserted.
His comments come weeks after Prime Minister of Barbados, David Thompson, announced a new policy that allow undocumented Caribbean nationals who began residing in Barbados prior to 2005 to be given Barbadian government identification and work permits, but subject those who entered thereafter and remain undocumented to deportation.
Thompson’s policy has come under withering criticism from fellow regional Heads of Government and other individuals, forcing the Prime Minister to make a strong defense last Saturday.
In a statement Tuesday, Burke charged that “Prime Minister Thompson is attempting to build a protectionist wall around Barbados, and has created the perception that “Barbados is only for “Bajans.”
“This is unquestionably repugnant to Caricom and is undermining Caribbean unity,” he added.
Blasting Thompson’s increased deportations and early morning raids against undocumented Caricom nationals, Burke accused the Bajan leader of promoting “national insularity” in the Caribbean and of stoking jingoistic fears in Barbados.”
Guyanese constitute the largest immigrant block in Barbados. The CGID head noted that many Guyanese, particularly those residing in Barbados, believe that immigration enforcement disproportionately and calculatedly targets Guyanese. He said that the Prime Minister’s own statistics, which he disclosed at a press conference last Saturday at Grantley Adams International Airport, validate this assessment.
According to media reports, Thompson disclosed that from June 1 to 26, raids were made on 15 residences between 3 am and 6 am, leading to the detention and removal of 47 non-nationals, 34 of whom were Guyanese.
However, Guyana’s Foreign Affairs Minister, Carolyn Rodrigues-Birkett yesterday disputed Thompson’s figures, announcing that in May, twenty-nine (29) Guyanese were deported from Barbados, and twenty-four (24) so far for the month of June. In total, 53 Guyanese have been deported from Barbados since Thompson’s policy was implemented on May 5, 2009.
Burke labeled the tactics of Barbados immigration authorities as draconian, and more aligned with “George Bush’s” approach to immigration” than Caribbean unity. He condemned the ongoing raids on suspected undocumented nationals as inhumane. “This must stop. These are families who seek a better life in a sister Caribbean state. They deserve to be treated with dignity,” Burke contended.
Responding to Thompson’s widely reported comments that “I have announced a domestic immigration policy that is not a matter for other Caribbean prime ministers to comment on,” Burke said “Those words portend arrogant isolationism.”
“We agree that everyone must abide by the law and that anyone who commits crimes must be brought to justice. However, this must be within the framework of the rule of law, rules and spirit of Caricom, as well as international norms of civil rights and fundamental fairness,” Burke stressed.
He noted that “We also agree that immigration policy throughout the region needs to be reformed and rationalized. In this context, unilateral, singular and uncoordinated action by one government, is counterproductive to a harmonized regional policy approach that promotes deeper integration, which we all seek.”
“The Caribbean Community is plagued by illiberalness and barren commitment to genuine integration. Some Heads of Government go to Caricom conferences and agree to decisions they have no intentions of implementing. As the integration and implementation process intensifies and the ramifications become real, their posture then become one of ambivalence and insularity. This is unacceptable and they must be called on it,” the CGID president said.
He cited Barbados’ immigration policy as well as the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) as prime examples. It a reference to OECS countries, The Bahamas, Jamaica and Trinidad, Burke said that it is insulting to the people of the region that these countries do not recognize the Appellate jurisdiction of the Caribbean Court of Justice, but rather cling to the Privy Council which is a relic of the so-called imperial oppression, which some of the very leaders claimed to have fought against. He opined that in Trinidad’s case the circumstance is particularly disgraceful, as the court is based in that country, where its Appellate jurisdiction is not recognized.
“It is such actions or non-action which have caused Caribbean integration to morph into more of a concept rather than reality, as manifested in obvious protectionist and hostile policies, driven by narrow, national interests, the Institute’s head said.
Burke called on regional heads to “roundly condemn the Barbadian policy at this week’s Caricom heads’ Summit in Guyana.” He especially singled out Guyana’s President, Bharrat Jagdeo, and called on him to “stand up and represent Guyanese for once.”
Burke also called on Thompson “To halt all draconian immigration practices and confer with his regional counterparts to conceptualize a more “altruistic, uniform and progressive” immigration policy that is congruous with the spirit of Caribbean integration and free movement of peoples, as envisioned by the revised Treaty of Chaguramas.”
caribbeaninstitute@gmail.com. http://www.c-gid.org
This issue of repugnant immigration practices by the Barbados Government is complex. It does not admit of any simple solution. As I see it there are 5 aspects that should be addressed. Each is complex in its own right. I itemise them at the beginning:
1. The incompetence of the Guyana Government.
2. The exploitation by the Barbadians of national sentiment at the expense of regional sentiment.
3. The loss of independence in the Caribbean civil service and , in this instance , in Barbados.
4. The lack of professionalism among the Caribbean officials speaking out against immigation injustice.
5. The inability of the Integration Movement to fulfill the expectations of the CSME.
1.The Incompetence of the Guyana Government
The underlying cause of the mistreatment of Guyanese in Barbados is the failure of the Guyana economy to provide work for its own people. The Guyana economy had recovered under Hoyte in the early 1990s but the PPP Govt., unmindful of the necessity to keep investments flowing into the economy, turned the investment spigot off when it rejected the donors’ proposals for upgrading the quality of the civil service and when Cheddi Jagan rejected a reliance on foreign investment . He turned down the Kayman Sankar project. In respect of the public service, the rejection of the donors’ approaches to attract well qualified public servants was inspired by Jagan’s egalitarian principles and his desire to Indianise the management cadre of the civil service and senior officials of the Sugar Corporation.
The business community had signaled to Jagan that they would turn to narcotics if his dollar-a-day payment policies and his halt to foreign direct investments were not reversed. Jagan compounded the difficulty when his Government turned down an IDB loan to resuscitate the electricity industry. His alternative investments in electricity were very costly and depressed the opportunities for efficient manufacturing. The narcotics corruption began to take hold and the corruption of Jagan’s closest advisers resulted, it is said, in his heart attack .
The ruthless Indianisation of the senior positions in the civil service and in the government corporations and the wanton destruction of the bauxite industry led Labour leader Lincoln Lewis to describe the situation as the economic genocide of Africans. The deterioration applied to all races as President Jagdeo assumed the presidency and refused to give priority to the maintenance of the country’s infrastructure . The increasing influence of the narcotics industry was associated with extra judicial murders of hundreds of Guyanese, mainly Africans, as emphasis was given more to coercion than to persusion. Guyanese accordingly migrated in droves in search of a better life .
This search for employment is at the bottom of the migration problems in Barbados and it is disingenuous to ignore the root cause of the difficulties faced by the Barbadians.
2.The exploitation of national sentiment in Barbados at the expense of regional sentiment.
It is a difficult task to build national and regional solidarity at the same time, especially when regional solidarity is under the stress of migration as discussed above. Under colonialism , West Indians did have a regional sentiment. We could travel from territory to territory and present a British passport and enter the territory without any difficulty. We were not confused about regional identity. Then came the travails associated with West Indian Federation. I have written about the difficulties caused by race in reaction to the notion of Federation.
Caribbean people are confused about national solidarity in the divisive Westminster politics which polarises relations between political party contestants to the point where party political rivals are seen as bitter enemies. The British Westminster system works because the leaders of Labour and Conservative Parties can socialise over tea and lunch in a way that Prime Ministers David Thompson and Owen Arthur cannot.
Institutions are necessary to bridge differences in CARICOM. The Barbadians actually have the institution which, under Prime Minister Sandiford, they referred to as the Social Compact. It comprised the Government , the Private Sector and the Trade Union Movement. The significant exclusion there is the Opposition. If the Social Compact included the Opposition, internal cohesion would benefit since the Compact discussed wages policy, fiscal policy and monetary policy,including exchange rate policy.
The Social Compact could deal with contentious issues like home ownership by Barbadians where foreigners are dispossesing Barbadians of homes by their enormous wealth. Brother Commissiong had raised this issue as an important political one but did not follow through with institutional arrangements to develop a sound basis for national policy . Charity begins at home.There is need for hard thinking on the necessary institutional arrangements to overcome the legacy of colonialialism.
Guyana did begin a sort of social compact but excluded both the Opposition and the Trade Union Movement. Jagdeo could not entertain the thought of having Lincoln Lewis sitting at the same table with him discussing wages policy, fiscal policy and exchange rate policy with him. It is an indication of the polarisation in the Guyana social relations. Ms. Gay McDougall , the U.N. Independent expert on Minority Issues observed that two separate and conflicting narratives and perceptions of reality have emerged among Afro- and Indo-Guyanese.
It is only when national policy becomes cohesive that we can entertain the thought of regional policy. In respect of regional policy, we are putting the cart (regional policy ) before the horse( national policy). IT WILL NOT WORK. Economist Dennis Pantin makes the point that regionalism has not been sold to the people. For that reason, regionalism has failed. But the shakers and movers in the integration movement are DEAF.
3. The Independence of the Civil Service
Our democracies become farcical if civil servants cannot give independent opinions that will not necessarily satisfy their political bosses. I remember telling George Reid of Barbados two stories which he told me could not happen in the Caribbean.
The first story is about Barbara Castle who was given the portfolio of Minister of Transport under Harold Wilson in Great Britain. The Minister was unhappy with her Permanent Secretary and requested the Chief Secretary to remove him. The Chief Secretary told Mrs. Castle that when an officer was appointed as permanent secretary, they had every confidence in his or her ability to perform. She would therefore have to work with him. Eighteen months afterwards, when the opportunity arose, the Permanent Secretary was moved.
The second story is one which Sir Shridath Ramphal may recall. In 1974, the British were happy with the way Guyana continued to supply Britain with sugar, albeit at the higher price.They sent their Minister of Agriculture, Hon. Peart, to negotiate with Mr. Burnham a new sugar price regime. Mr. Burnham negotiated with the Minister on a one-on one basis until he reached what he thought was a favourable arrangement for Guyana.
Mr. Burnham called in Sir Shridath who was the leader of the Guyanese officials to indicate the outlines of the agreement. When Sir Shridath reported to both British and Guyanese officials what Mr. Burnham told him, the British Permanent Secretary said immediately that that agreement could not stand. As Mr. Burnham and Mr. Peart emerged, the Permanent Secretary told Mr. Burnham that he could not take that agreement back to Britain and that the arangement will have to be re-negotiated. Thereupon, the Permanent Secretary took the lead role in negotiating with Mr. Burnham until a satisfactory outcome was reached.
George Reid told me that neither story was possible in the West Indies.The Chief Secretary, with Mrs. Castle , and the Permanent Secretary , with Mr. Peart , will both have been sent home.
That British culture was never developed in the Caribbean. Mr. Burnham undermined any such independence by insisting that he saw the names of the members of the Public Service Commissions before their appointment , and that the Commissions indicated to him the names of the senior civil servants that they were appointing to posts.
The independence of the civil service was dead.. Mr. Barrow in Barbados followed suit. I was in Barbados in 1994 when elections were announced. Senior civil servants were nervous about the election outcome because it meant a possible change of their fortunes.
It is this loss of an independence in the civil service that has developed a culture that has made mis- treatment of immigrants an acceptable norm. Reference is not made to rules of civil service operations. Civil servants ascribe more importance to the thinking of their bosses than to rules of Customs and Immigration proceedures. A more independent civil service will not prevent extradition policy but it will most likely put a brake on its inhumanity.
The situation in Guyana is even worse. An independent Commissioer of Police was hounded out of office to be replaced by a more compliant successor. The Chief Secretary in Britain and Mr. Peart’s Permanent Secretary are not envisioned as models. In fact , Tony Blair , in his arbitrariness in the pursuit of the Iraq war went around the principles of proper civil service conduct and has left a thorough mess behind.
The issue of good governance should be raised in this immigration mess. Prime Minister Thompson wielded too much power in assuming office. As Bakunin said, “Take the most radical revolutionary and place him on the throne of all Russia and give him the dictatorial power , and , before a year has passed , he will become worse than the Czar himself.”
We are dealing with Bakunin Czars. The system is usually bent to satisfy their wills.
4. The lack of professionalism among Caribbean officials
Caribbean officials , myself included, have been hopelessly unprofessional in our comments on this issue. Because I am intimately involved with the criminality and the cruelty of the Guyana Government, my eyes were closed to the national/regional dilemma that the Barbadians faced and to the underlying deficiency in governance with which the Barbadians have responded to the dilemma . The eyes of the officials, horrified by the inhumanity of the Barbadians , were afraid to lambaste the Guyana Government for the part that it is playing in the suffering of its own people. Since most of us do not come under the jurisdiction of any government, our partiality can be explained only by our desire to be politically correct.
All my arguments about the suffering of Guyanese in Guyana were ignored. A WPA statement on the typical injustice by the courts was not commented on. Complex issues do not have simple solutions. The officials insisted on simple solutions. My solutions were, by no means, simple. But they were udoubtedly one sided.
The purpose of this note is to encourage the CARICOM heads to avoid simplisms in their addressing the Barbados immigration practices. The main villain of the peace is President Jagdeo but Prime Minister Thompson has transgressed in disobeying the principles of good governance . Reversing those transgressions will take courage to reconcile national with regional sentiment and to change the culture of the civil service. Until those recommened institutional steps are taken, we are spinning top in mud.
5.The failure of Integration
It is patently dishonest to conclude that the CSME is well served with instruments for its success and to expect success in relation to freedom of movement to come from the functioning of the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramus. That is one of the arguments for not reversing migrations that have already taken place. There are at least four reasons why integration failed.
The first and most fundamental is that intra-regional trade has diminished rather than increased. If we leave Trinidad’s oil out of the development, there is not much difference now between the extent to which CARICOM countries buy from and sell to one another and what it was say, two decades ago. There is perhaps some increase in Trinidad manufactures sold in CARICOM but that has come largely at the expense of CARICOM markets lost by CARICOM manufacturers.
The approach of production platforms that held so much promise at the time of the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas was killed by the WTO. The value added potential resulting from the manufacture of CARICOM raw materials in CARICOM–raw bauxite using the energy from Trinidad, jewellry manufacture using the gold and diamonds from Guyana and Suriname, the furniture manufacture of wood from the forests from Guyana and Suriname, the processing of fruits throughout CARICOM by CARICOM manufactureres — was never developed .That would have raised intra-regional trade and provided scope for the movement of CARICOM workers . It has never happened.
The second reason for the failure of the Integration Movement has been the inability to maintain the regional tertiary education system that CARICOM inherited. UWI is regional only in name. In that respect, UWI ,as a regional institution, is almost a farce. Cheddi Jagan first refused the offer by Sir Arthur Lewis to join. Then came the separate country financial arrangements that Willie Demas recommended. That led to the establishment of virtual national campuses under a UWI rubric. When The Bahamas virtually begged to head the hospitality faculty of UWI , she was ignored. Jamaica established an Information Technology Faculty outside of the UWI system. Trinidad did the same with its faculty on Mining. Guyana established a Medical School and , in general, continued its separation from UWI. Since then , expansion of national universities has become the norm.
The engineering faculty in Trinidad had been unhelpful in developing the electrical engineering industry in St. Kitts. The Agriculture faculty in Trinidad is not dedicated to the sector in CARICOM . It concentrates on the teaching of agricultural science.
The third reason for the failure of the Integration Movement is the inability to develop a regional monetary and financial policy. As CLICO failed, different country responses emerged.
The fourth reason for the failure of Integration is the inability to take the focus off the Rex Nettleford development of education for a post slave society. That would have meant consideration of the relation between a post slave and a post indenture society. In the sloppiness with which this important cultural dimension is faced, Guyana continues its pursuit of a Little India policy in Guyana and CARICOM abandons Haiti to repression by the Dominican Republic . That is the very Dominica Republic that is seeking to join CARICOM under instructions from the European Union. And CARICOM seems eager to entertain its new member. Are we serious when we speak of our being one people? We are not one people in each country. Can we be one people in the Integration Movement?
The purpose of this long note is to encourage the CARICOM Heads to address the fundamental problems that I have addressed here. We must overcome the prejudice that comlex problems can be addressed with simple solutions.
Very well said, Mr. Dwyer Astaphan!
PEOPLES EMPOWERMENT PARTY: MEMORANDUM
A SOLUTION TO THE IMMIGRATION CRISIS
The Peoples Empowerment Party (PEP) would like to respectfully suggest that the government of Barbados should respond to the ‘Immigration Crisis’ by modifying the new Immigration policy enunciated by Prime Minister David Thompson in Parliament, and should instead implement the following measures:-
(1) The Five Year Amnesty
Under the new Immigration policy enunciated on 5th May 2009, the current Barbados government is offering an amnesty to undocumented CARICOM migrants, but in order to qualify for this amnesty the migrant must have come to Barbados prior to the 1st of January 1998 - almost 12 years ago. This contrasts with the old ‘five year amnesty’ policy that was in effect under the previous Barbados Labour Party administration.
As most Barbadians are aware, the Owen Arthur Administration, in an effort to assist undocumented CARICOM migrants who had become ‘Barbadianised’, had decreed that all such migrants who had resided in Barbados for at least 5 years, would be given the privelege to come forward and apply for Immigration Status.
Thus, there is a significant number of undocumented migrants who, having resided in Barbados for five (5) years, legitimately expected to benefit from the old ‘five year’ amnesty policy, and had actually put in their applications for status prior to Prime Minister Thompson announcing his new policy on 5th May 2009. These people are now being told that they have lost their ‘rights’ as a result of the new policy.
This is simply not right and the Thompson Administration should therefore publicly announce that it will extend special consideration to all such undocumented CARICOM migrants who had been in Barbados for five or more years prior to the change in policy, and who had therefore qualified for amnesty under the old policy.
As all lawyers are aware, the retrospective or retroactive application of law is frowned upon. Thus, the current Government should respect the position of all those who had legitimately qualified for ‘amnesty’ before the change of policy, and these persons should be assured that they will be dealt with in accordance with the old rules and procedures!
Of course this does not mean that all of these applicants will be successful, but it would quieten a lot of fears and deliver even handed justice to our CARICOM brothers and sisters.
(2) Guest Worker Programme
The current government should also take immediate steps to establish a formal, state run ‘Guest Worker Programme’ specifically for citizens of fellow CARICOM states.
It is clear that the evolving Barbadian economy and society has now reached a stage where the young generation of native Barbadians is not attracted to a number of manual and low level service jobs in agriculture, construction, domestic service and health care, and that we have entered a phase in which our CARICOM neighbours are providing much of this labour.
Our government needs to acknowledge this new reality, and establish an official ‘migrant labour’ or ‘guest worker’ programme that will take the chaos and corruption out of the system of issuing work permits. This new programme should be administered by a unit or department set up within the Ministry of Labour, to which an appropriate number of Immigration officers could be seconded.
The new department will act as a ‘Labour Exchange’ for employers seeking workers, and for would-be migrants seeking temporary employment, and would also be charged with ensuring that acceptable minimum standards in working conditions and wages are maintained.
Once such a ‘Guest Worker Programme’ is established, Government should invite all undocumented CARICOM migrants who are currently in Barbados, but who have been residing here for less than 5 years, to immediately come forward and apply to the ‘Guest Worker Programme’.
These undocumented migrants should also be given the assurance that every effort will be made to accommodate them immediately, and that if that is not possible, they will be required to return home, but with the assurance that their name will be given its rightful and early place on the official waiting list.
If these simple measures are taken, no undocumented CARICOM migrant will feel that he or she needs to go underground; order and regulation will be imposed on the immigration situation; and Barbados will regain its image and reputation as a humane country and an exemplar within the Carribbean integration movement.
DAVID A COMISSIONG
President