George Brathwaite speaks...

(continuation)

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.