THE scale of negative commentary and engineered political fuss given to thoroughly vetted deportees, of third countries, from the U.S., is disproportionate to the substantive national impact. Any such matter, of course, will arouse national interest and citizens have every right to demand a forthright explanation from their government. In return, the government is expected to provide a solid and detailed explanation to citizens without external prompting. The government has done a creditable job thus far.
I take matters involving immigration and movement of people a bit more nonchalantly than the average person, because I am an immigration liberalist, one who believes borders should only exist for academic and administrative purposes, but not to bind or limit people. Except for controlling crime and criminal activities, people should be allowed to settle anywhere they want. So, in my world there are no visas, green cards or specific travel requirement outside of an agreed method of identification. There is therefore no such thing as an immigration crime.
However, that’s not the way this world is ordered. There are so many cultural phobias, ethnic preferences, institutional and bureaucratic artifices set up to severely curtail immigration, generally, and to filter out those who are less desirable. Seventh-eights of the big dig I encounter about immigration, I usually ask, “what’s the fuss?”
Talking about bureaucratic artifices, let me stitch this one in quickly: do you know that there is nowhere in the Caribbean, among CARICOM member states that you can travel on an open ticket? You won’t get pass the check-in counter without a definitive return ticket. Even travelling directly to Barbados from Guyana, which requires only your national identification card, the traveller must present a return ticket to get on the plane. That sounds counterintuitive to me.
Guess which airline is most rigid in upholding and enforcing this requirement? Yes! the Trinidad-based Caribbean Airlines, the regional bastion for free movement of people, wink, wink.
Please allow me to stitch in one more thing: it hit the news this week that Justice Gino Persaud was prevented from attending an important legal conference in Jamaica because he had visa troubles transiting through the United States. My reaction was simple. Why in God’s name do we need to transit through the USA when travelling between the north and south Caribbean? To the governments of the Caribbean; what are we doing to ourselves?
Moving on. I remember the days when Guyanese left these shores in droves for destinations all over the world. Some left using internationally recognised legal pathways, while others used all forms of “backtrack” methods; not markedly different from the methods being used by others to come to Guyana. The thing about that is, most Guyanese know of a friend, relative, neighbour, schoolmate or family member, who illegally migrated to other countries, lived a good-enough life to send back remittances and otherwise contributed to bettering whole families and communities. Because of our history with migration, if there is no other nationality that should have an easygoing attitude to immigration, should be Guyanese.
That said, the opposition attempted to create a storm with respect to the government’s decision to accept six citizens from other countries deported by the USA to Guyana.
At a press conference last week, Dr Terrence Campbell said that he spoke to the Guyanese people and the Guyanese people do not want to have those people here. As simple as this point of view sounds on the surface, it is laden with points for the analysis. First, outside of his narrow partisan echo chamber, which group of Guyanese people did Campbell speak to and who is he speaking for?
Campbell’s emanations are fruits of solid REM sleep, characterised by vivid dreaming. Second, Campbell’s statements suggest that he has no thought for geopolitical realities of the day and no appreciation for where the poles of power exist and how it is being wielded. There is a demonstrable lack of appreciation for bilateral quid pro quo. Third, Campbell also spoke of massive ill effects on national institutions and structures, but fail to identify one single institution that will be degraded or outline one negative impact. Fourth, Campbell spent considerable time belabouring the point that the persons accepted as part of the third-country migrant agreement are criminals and that any assertions that they did not commit any crime would be a falsity since, at least, immigration rules were breached. Campbell must be unaware of the preponderance of news on the exploits of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement aka ICE, where people from third countries who held legal court appointments for asylum hearings but were nevertheless seized from the streets of America, some even while waiting outside the courthouse on the very date of appointment. So, no Dr Campbell, many deportees may not have committed even immigration infractions under U.S. laws. Campbell is not alone: there is an entire echo chamber of parrots spewing the same bilge.
Efforts at fearmongering and rank opportunism to eke out some form of political mileage and seek national relevance have not borne any fruits. The real people of Guyana, who Campbell claimed he spoke to, actually paid him no mind. The whole thing turned out to be a grand overreaction that is extremely disproportionate to the extant execution of the agreement. The principals of APNU continue to oppose for the sake of opposing. This rigid political MO will not win any new support and may very well lead the PNC to continual damnation.