@LHolder
““The ratification of the Convention by a state means that the legislative or law-making branch of its government has adopted the Convention and promised to incorporate it into its national laws.””

The key words are “promised to incorporate it into its national laws”, which depends on whatever legislative timetable the government of the day has in mind. Until there are national laws enacted the ratified convention (of any sort) has not legal effect in the country concern. It is merely a commitment up to that point.

I know of plenty of instances of countries signing and ratifying conventions but never passing or even tabling any national legislation to make them effective.

I feel compelled to add to my earlier comments about the term “ethnic cleansing” used by Sir Shridath Ramphal in his interview with Stabroek News. This is not some “Ordinary Joe” in the street using over heated hyperbole to sound off but a retired Secretary General of the Commonwealth. The term “ethnic cleansing” has been used to describe the odious regime in Yugoslavia in relation to events in Bosnia. Latterly it has been used to describe actions in Rwanda and Darfur.

Ramphal on the conclusion of his term likely had his choice of multiple countries in which to reside but he chose to live in Barbados. Now that the Barbados Gov’t has deported less than 100 Guyanese citizens who were residing illegally in Barbados he grants an interview to Stabroek where he lumps the action of the Barbados Gov’t with rogue regimes.

A little history to make a point: In 1965 when Ian Smith’s Rhodesian Front in the then British colony of Rhodesia made the Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) from Britain, Harold Wilson the then British Prime Minister said that the use of military force to reverse the illegal act would not be contemplated because the UK population would not support such an action since the Rhodesians “are our kith and kin”

That’s how Ramphal feels about some Guyanese who were deported; they are his “kith and kin”

Livinginbarbados,
Note that my earlier comments related to Professor Thomas’ misleading statements with regard to CARICOM countries and the Migrant Workers’ Convention (see my earlier post on the blog). In that posting on the blog, I made the distinction between signature and ratification. I stated that “Guyana signed the Convention on the 15th September 2005, but is yet to ratify it. When a country ratifies the Convention, it becomes the applicable law in that country provided that at least twenty UN members have ratified it.”

Following those statements, Themis jumped on the bandwagon with response, “A ratification alone does not make a Convention applicable law in a country… legislation is still required.”

To provide greater clarity on the issue, I reproduce below the formal UN definitions of ‘Signature’ and ‘Ratification’.

Signature: ‘Signature’ of a treaty is an act by which a State provides a preliminary endorsement of the instrument. Signing does not create a binding legal obligation but does demonstrate the State’s intent to examine the treaty domestically and consider ratifying it. While signing does not commit a State to ratification, it does oblige the State to refrain from acts that would defeat or undermine the treaty’s objective and purpose.

Ratify/Ratification: ‘Ratification’ is an act by which a State signifies an agreement to be legally bound by the terms of a particular treaty. To ratify a treaty, the State first signs it and then fulfils its own national legislative requirements. Once the appropriate national organ of the country – Parliament, Senate, the Crown, Head of State or Government, or a combination of these – follows domestic constitutional procedures and makes a formal decision to be a party to the treaty. The instrument of ratification, a formal sealed letter referring to the decision and signed by the State’s responsible authority, is then prepared and deposited with the United Nations Secretary-General in New York.

Based on the second definition, I would think that, for example, if the Parliament of Barbados makes a formal decision by tabling, in the approved format, and approving the Convention in both the House of Assembly and in the Senate, then the Convention becomes the applicable law provided that the criterion of at least twenty UN members ratifying the Convention has been met. Of course, the Governor General has to assent before it becomes law. In my opinion, those procedures are covered under the statement, “Once the appropriate national organ of the country – Parliament, Senate, the Crown, Head of State or Government, or a combination of these – follows domestic constitutional procedures and makes a formal decision to be a party to the treaty.”

So for me, ratification means enactment into the laws of a country, i.e., passing of the appropriate legislation. Thus, there is no difference between ratification and legislation as Themis tried to imply.

Sargeant, thank you so much for expounding on the nuances of Sir Shridath Ramphal’s statement. Wonderful! You know, these points we have been discussing are beyond Themis’ grasp, poor fellow.

@LHolder
Ratification has no applicable meaning at the national level other than intent to agree, because conventions deal with general principles that then need to be legislated to fit national circumstances.

So, as you state: “‘Ratification’ is an act by which a State signifies an agreement to be legally bound by the terms of a particular treaty. To ratify a treaty, the State first signs it and then fulfils its own national legislative requirements. Once the appropriate national organ of the country – Parliament, Senate, the Crown, Head of State or Government, or a combination of these – follows domestic constitutional procedures and makes a formal decision to be a party to the treaty.”

That legal process has no time limit, and some countries sign onto treaties/conventions and ratify them then go no further. There are kudos for being signatories and ratifying.

“I would think that, for example, if the Parliament of Barbados makes a formal decision by tabling, in the approved format, and approving the Convention in both the House of Assembly and in the Senate, then the Convention becomes the applicable law provided that the criterion of at least twenty UN members ratifying the Convention has been met. Of course, the Governor General has to assent before it becomes law.” Contains a big ‘if’, and nothing applies legally at the national level until that ‘if’ is done. There can be a huge gap in time between ratification and national law being in place.

We are agreed on process, but we should leave the impression that these are rubber stamp exercise. We can make a side bet on when we think the process will be completed in Barbados 🙂

@ROK
Are you suggesting that true friends are identified by their willingness to provide gifts?
Did you notice my use of the adjective ‘mendicant’ to describe my perspective of the attitude of many Caribbean peoples?

ROK, true ‘friends’ are those who genuinely care about your welfare and wellbeing. They are there when you fall- to help you up – but not to pander to any laziness or self-inflicted idiocy.

True friends are happy for you when you succeed…. not to be confused with parasites who jump onto your back in order to exploit opportunities not available to them on their home host.

What developmental funding what?!?

When you look around Barbados do you really see a need for ‘developmental’ funding?

We just burnt down a working prison and spent hundreds of millions on a new one ‘just so…’
We do not even know how much we spent with the ABC /3S / Veco / fiascos – why would real friends offer us ‘developmental funding’?

…real friends are those who support our genuine tourism, business, social and other enterprises..

Livinginbarbados,
Based on your last posting, I get the general drift of what you are saying, but there are some aspects that we should discuss.

For example, I am not sure what you mean by the statement “Ratification has no applicable meaning at the national level other than intent to agree, because conventions deal with general principles that then need to be legislated to fit national circumstances.”

First of all, let us accept that ratification involves two components; the major one being the acceptance or enactment into the domestic laws of a given country in accordance with the established procedures. Once that is done, then the country would indicate to the UN, in the case of the Migrant Workers’ Convention, through a formal sealed letter that it has enacted the appropriate legislation.

As you implied, there can be a huge time lapse between the two events or actions that we just outlined, e.g., because of the need to amend other legislation. In practice, however, if the country is sincere in its intention to adopt the Convention, it would take the necessary steps to enact the Convention into domestic law and to amend any subsidiary legislation at the same time or in the same sitting of Parliament. Thus, the time between undertaking the appropriate legislative activities and formally informing the UN should not be long.

Once the two actions are completed, Article 87, Clause 2 states that, “For each State ratifying or acceding to the present Convention after its entry into force, the Convention shall enter into force on the first day of the month following a period of three months after the date of the deposit of its own instrument of ratification or accession.”

With regard to your statement that, “conventions deal with general principles that then need to be legislated to fit national circumstances”, there are some issues that we should consider and probably get legal advice on.

For example, Article 88 of the Migrant Workers’ Convention states, “A State ratifying or acceding to the present Convention may not exclude the application of any Part of it, or, without prejudice to article 3, exclude any particular category of migrant workers from its application.”

Article 3 excludes certain types of migrants from the Convention.

Yet, Article 91 states:
1. The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall receive and circulate to all States the text of
reservations made by States at the time of signature, ratification or accession.
2. A reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the present Convention shall not be permitted.

According to the ‘United Nations Treaty Collection – Treaty Reference Guide’, reservation has the following meaning:
“A reservation is a declaration made by a state by which it purports to exclude or alter the legal effect of certain provisions of the treaty in their application to that state. A reservation enables a state to accept a multilateral treaty as a whole by giving it the possibility not to apply certain provisions with which it does not want to comply. Reservations can be made when the treaty is signed, ratified, accepted, approved or acceded to. Reservations must not be incompatible with the object and the purpose of the treaty. Furthermore, a treaty might prohibit reservations or only allow for certain reservations to be made.”
[Arts.2 (1) (d) and 19-23, Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties 1969]

So as you implied, a country can have objections to some of the articles of the Convention, and those objections should be indicated by entering reservations. But in light of Article 88, I do not have the legal expertise to determine how Article 91 would be interpreted given the provisions of Article 88.

When I look at this whole debate with continued interest as it pertains to not only Guyana but also other Caribbean states the common theme that I seem to be seeing is that it isn’t really about “complete free-movement” or “treaties” from the “regionalists” camp, but It is just really High-capita per income countries vs low-capita per income countries within CSME.I think Barbados’ immigration policy is just being used as a front for something much bigger in Caricom with the Prime Minister of Barbados being the main target NOT the policy in question.The reasoning behind the ‘regionalists’ effort is simply to weaken the resolve of Mr. Thompson as the head of the CSME project so he would be more willing negotiate on so called “contingent rights”.Think about it,those that are currently leading the charge on the ‘regionalists’ side are basically from the poorer economies[per capita wise] within CSME.I got the idea after reading this article from Dr. Kevin J. Alcena.It is a 3 year old artilce from a Bahamian,but it clearly has relevance today.

——————————————————————————————-

http://macharikevinalcenaa.blogspot.com/2009/05/any-politician-who-supports-csme-should.html

“ANY POLITICIAN WHO SUPPORTS CSME SHOULD NOT BE ELECTED
by Dr. Kevin J. Alcena

In the face of an uncertain future, many Caribbean nations are advocating integration as an attempt to cope with the perceived impediments to growth, namely: small size, economic fragmentation and dependence on extraregional markets. The rationale behind integration being that by pooling local resources and markets, greater economic and social development can occur as opposed to “going it alone”. It is also envisaged that through integration, the Caribbean will develop a stronger bargaining position relative to the global economy (Chernick, 1978, p.5).

Economic integration takes place when a group of countries in the same region combine together to create an economic alliance with a common tariff barrier towards non-members while allowing free trade among members. The system works best when participating nations are relatively equal in size and stage of development and have a strong commitment to coordinate and rationalize their joint industrial growth patterns (Todaro, 1989, p. 454).

Caribbean leaders are seemingly convinced that integration is the system of the future drawing support from the momentous unification of Europe as well as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between the U.S.A. and Canada with Mexico on the verge of becoming a third major partner in this historic alliance. In his article entitled “The West Indies Beyond 1992″, the then Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago, A.N.R.

Robinson pointed to this global
restructuring and writes:-

… against this background of historic change and
historic appraisal, the Caribbean could be in danger
of becoming a backwater, separated from the main
current of human advance into the twenty-first
century… (The Report of The West Indian
Commission, 1992, p.3).

Prime Minister Erskine Sandiford of Barbados, in his opening remarks at the eleventh summit in 1990, expressed his concept of integration and its significance for the Caribbean:-

For me, the Caribbean Community, the Integrated
States of the Caribbean of which I have spoken, is
much more than the efforts to secure free internal
trade, or a common external tariff, or the
harmonization of fiscal incentives or a common
industrial, agricultural or transportation policy, or the
establishment of a common market, or even the
formation of a full economic union. For me, the
Caribbean Community is nothing more and nothing
less than the efforts of the Caribbean people to create
a new and unique political entity that respects the
national sovereignty of each individual territory, while
at the same time pooling aspects of that sovereignty
and pooling aspects of their resources in order to
promote and preserve peace, promote and preserve
democracy, promote and preserve fundamental
human rights and the rule of law, and promote and
preserve economic and social development among
Caribbean people (The Report of The West Indian
Commission, 1992, p. 467).

Lester Thurow expresses the view that the system that governs the world economy is changing and by the first half of the twenty-first century, a new system of quasi trading blocks utilizing managed trade will emerge (1992, p. 16). In addition, Hazel Johnson argues that regionalization is a strong force that has and will continue to effect standards of living throughout the world (1991, p. 1).
With regard to integration reducing the dependency on developed countries, Arthur Lewis supports increased trade between less developed countries on the basis that:-
a) less developed countries possess all the necessary requirements for growth,
b) less developed countries have enough land to feed themselves if properly cultivated,
c) less developed countries are capable of acquiring manufacturing skills and accumulating much needed capital for modernization.

Thus, development in the long run does not have to be dependent on the assistance of developed countries (1978, pp. 69-71).
Michael Manley also supports integration on the grounds that unless there is greater cooperation between developing countries, Third World countries are at risk of losing their political independence due to economic reality. He argues that it is impossible to develop internally and in isolation. Given that the First World has no interest in reforming the way the world economy functions, Third World countries have no choice but to attempt development from within their own resources and create its own opportunities (1991, pp. 101-104).
The allegation that the Bahamas government is stalling on the Caribbean Single Market Economy (CSME) and characterized as “defrauding” the proposed economic bloc is tantamount to a slap in the face of the country. The Bahamas, as one of the most prosperous countries in the region, has been a significant contributor to the progress of the Caribbean region. Our immigration policy has been very accommodative of our Caribbean neighbours; however, we cannot officially, through any trade or regional integration, open the doors to our economy that would allow for the free movement of labour.

The concept of free market is conceived with the intention to advance the interest of each member of the proposed trading bloc as first priority. The Bahamas, as a member of the proposed trading bloc, cannot afford to negotiate an integration policy that runs counter to its national economic, social and political interests. Nations all over the world agree to integration agreement only to the extent that its domestic economic, political and social structures are safeguarded from the impact of such integration, hence not compromising our national sovereignty. The United Kingdom is a prime example of a country that has so far limited the level of its integration with the European Union on the basis of its national realities, without an alluded insinuation that its policy position is selfish and deceitful in its commitment to the EU.

The Bahamas has made its position glaringly clear both by the previous and present governments regarding its concern for the clause allowing the free flow of labour within the Caribbean, because of the unique nature of our economy. Despite the Bahamas’ significantly high level of employment, coupled with the high per capita income (the third best in the Western Hemisphere), our economy is not comfortably durable and sustainable in the face of potential high influx of labour that the ratification of the CSME as it is currently demanding. In essence, and of necessity, members of the proposed CSME must understand and appreciate the uniqueness of each member’s economy, the political structures and its social demographics vis-à-vis the base of each country’s economic sustainability.

Any government policy, irrespective of the basis of formulation, that creates imbalance on its social structure, particularly in the level of unemployment, will certainly create negative social and economic externalities that will impact the sustainability and growth of its economy, hence, defeating the purpose of the CSME. The CSME can only strive and help to elevate other member countries’ economies if the economies of its member states are progressive and structurally developing: anything short of that achievement negate the intent of the integration effort.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the Bahamas stalling in the agreement of the free movement of labour clause for as long as the economy remains unviable for such clause to be implemented within the Bahamas’ territory. Though it is acceptable and necessary that CSME be concluded in due time to allow for a stronger Caribbean voice in the negotiation for the Free Trade Areas of the Americas (FTAA), the Bahamas still cannot assent to a clause that is clearly evident will not support the government’s policy towards the consolidation of its economic policies, particularly at this time of global economic uncertainties, and constant international threats of terrorism that could at moment’s notice undermine the tourism-based economy of ours.

The Caribbean leaders, in pursuit of the introduction of the CSME, must exercise good sense of judgement in understanding the practical reality of the fact that the Bahamas’ economy is not sustainably strong enough to allow for the free movement of labour. This is similar to the context which most of the Caribbean countries are agitating against – the inclusion of the FTAA clause allowing the free flow of investment and services. The leaders of the CSME must undertake a study of the various countries within the region to understand each country’s potential economic latitude to enable them to appreciate grey areas where there are genuine concerns to allow for concessions. The act of blindly insisting on the general acceptance of the entire agreement in the integration charter is inconsistent with the ideals of the region’s integration, as this would have dire consequences on many professions in the Bahamas, namely: medical/pharmacy and legal, among many others.

Integration must be constructive and provide the enabling environment for each country to grow without imposing significant inhibiting factor(s) that would impede the growth and development of any member country within the region. Therefore, it is frivolous for leaders of the CSME to slam the Bahamas about procrastinating or stalling the labour agreement. The Bahamas is not stalling, but opting out of the labour agreement, because it is not in the best interest of the Bahamas, at least at this time.”

@lholder and LIB,

A reservation does not have always to exclude the application of part of the treaty, it can also relate to how the provisions of the treaty are to be interpreted. For example, Egypt made a reservation in respect of Article 4 of the treaty under discussion concerning how the term “members of the family” was to be interpreted.

@Themis
You are simply belligerent.

@IHolder
“But in light of Article 88, I do not have the legal expertise to determine how Article 91 would be interpreted given the provisions of Article 88.”

Just responding to what you have posted and with no prior intimate knowledge of the Convention in question, Article 91: 2 is instructive:

2. A reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the present Convention shall not be permitted.

This is a basic principle of agreements because if the foundation of the Convention is undermined, then the Convention falls through; there is no convention.

Hence, it would seem that to do the following would offend the convention so gravely as to undermine it:

“A State ratifying or acceding to the present Convention may not exclude the application of any Part of it, or, without prejudice to article 3, exclude any particular category of migrant workers from its application.”

This means that to “exclude any particular category of migrant workers from its application” would be a serious breach of the Convention and could not be permitted as a reservation.

Another point which must be drawn to the attention of this debate is that many conventions state, as part of its terms, that any local law existing on the statute books a country which is contrary to the convention or treaty; the treaty or convention shall prevail.

Therefore, to say that local law is required to bring conventions and treaties under local authority is not all correct. Give me a chance and I will find an example. I think that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is one with such provisions.

@ IHolder

In briefly perusing the Rights of the Child Convention, below is the closest I saw to one such provision

Article 41

Nothing in the present Convention shall affect any provisions which are more conducive to the realization of the rights of the child and which may be contained in:

(a) The law of a State party; or

(b) International law in force for that State.

What this also implies is that the Convention will affect anything which is less conducive to the realisation of children’s rights.

In the end, if you look at how conventions and treatise are written, they seek to respect sovereignty and culture and generally attempt not to be even minutely offensive to any state, while at the same time addressing the objective of the instrument. Hence in many parts you will see that the provisions allow a country to set its definition or set certain standards.

For example, Article 1
“For the purposes of the present Convention, a child means every human being below the age of eighteen years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier.”

Example 2 is drawn from Article 3:3. “States Parties shall ensure that the institutions, services and facilities responsible for the care or protection of children shall conform with the standards established by competent authorities, particularly in the areas of safety, health, in the number and suitability of their staff, as well as competent supervision.”

In the circumstances, it is hard for a country to go wrong on those kinds of provisions. However, a most salient point is whether after ratification, where ratification entailed a passage through Parliament of the Convention but the law does not change, any court can overturn the law if it does not conform to the convention.

The basis would be that both are law and in terms of legal procedure one law cannot contradict another; law must be certain. Hence, the court would be required to state what is the law and it would arrive at this by a series of deductions and assumptions. Of course there are some, what I would term as reckless, decisions where the previous standing law, traditional law or custom was enforced as a message sent to parliament by the judiciary basically saying, “get your act together”.

I say reckless because one of the assumptions is that Parliament did not intend for the law to bring hardship on people.

In any immigration convention, one would assume that the contents of such a document would hinge moreso on the treatment of the person and any associated rights established by the state in question, as it relates to qualification requirements set out by the state.

I would therefore want to respectfully disagree that any error made now cannot be corrected in the future. Any time that a state is faced with a breach of its laws it can act; how it acts will be the only question and if its officers act illegally in carrying out its functions then that behaviour should be called to account. When this becomes a concern, the decision is merely incidental to the unprofessional behaviour.

If you check carefully, you will see that the Prime Minister dealt with all these points in his address.

@Themis

I will take it that you can’t read, OK.

Themis, LIB, and ROK,
Thanks for the clarifications.

The Migrants Workers’ Convention is probaly the most detailed and complex of the UN international conventions. Being not a lawyer, I find it challenging to make sense of some of the articles.

ROK, what I meant by not having a chance to correct it in the future is that if you ended up with a situation where there were actually fifty or sixty or seventy thousand undocumented immigrants, then it would be nigh impossible to retrieve the situation.

@LHolder
Clarfication aids understanding. You’re welcome.
@ROK
You point out something I have tried to draw attention to: regularising illegal immigrants does not equate to removal of this group (and the PM’s citing the initial results that came in June, we see that most people seeking regularisation will be allowed to stay). The government stands to gain from this, as you note, with more revenue potential from having people’s work/economic activities visible and legal, so taxable (income tax on wages and rent, NIS, VAT, etc.). To the extent that these regularised people may have need to recourse to public services, the government should then have a better handle of that burden. It’s hard to judge if the revenue gain will just be a plus or if higher costs will actually be incurred by providing these services (my impression is that these costs will not move much–limits on additional staff and pay, mainly–but the quality of service may suffer).

@MUBB
What mantra? The PM said “I have no reason to believe that the majority of these applications will not be approved.” Black and white in the papers. His words, not mine. You add speculation to his statements: “I believe” you say. As was discussed last week, neither the PS or Sen. McLean gave any information pertinent to illegal immigration. Please don’t blame me for that. I have no issue with the PM’s resolution–he’s the head of government. I cannot say if he will change his stance. Politicians have been known to do that often.

One of my contentions has been that the policy on amnesty was not well framed in any sort of numerical context and that makes the whole issue subject to a lot of speculation. Some said the numbers were not important. Some said the numbers will be given in due course.

When the PM or other ministers stand up and make pronouncements the general expectation is that these will be better understood if you point out where you started and where you will end. So, in the budget discussion, for example, everyone would be shocked if the PM/Finance Minister gave data for just the last month. At the least, everyone could go to the central bank bulletins and see how the latest month stacks up with whatever period they wanted. When the police commissioner discusses crime, he talks about where things are relative to some past period and what the expecations are for the future. With BWA the call for a rate increase is predicated on the quantified parlous state of its finances. Why? Because people need to understand that context. Not so with immigration, it seems, and I personally am bewildered by that. If the attitude of the Immigration Department has not hardened in the month of June that is good, but why could the PM not just say of offer a statement such as “During the previous 12 months…..” then everyone would see and hear how the normal activity had been? Instead, everyone and their mother is coming with their story and interpretation. The PR leaves a lot to be desired.

As I argued before it makes a huge difference if the base is nearer 5000 or closer to 50000. The figures given yesterday cannot make much sense unless you know from which of these very different scenarios you are starting.

I’m happy to leave it to the press conference now promised in Georgetown, and I hope that those present will be pressing for more information, because there is a general need to know.

@MUBB

You have your interpretation, and I have mine. All I have read (and I am no lawyer) mentions regularisation, without definition. Given that illegal immigrants are in different circumstances, I do not see how you can say that ‘regularisation’ means long term residency. It should mean that the documents you have to stay (and work) in the country are in order. If you are supposed to be on a short term contract (you say 3-6 months) that is now clear, and does not preclude its renewal. I know of people (non-Caricom nationals) who have been here for the past few years on a series of work permits.

The only details of which I am aware are the conditions to be met:

The conditions of Government’s amnesty are as follows:

a. Persons must submit the application for immigration status along with supporting documentation to the Immigration Department by December 1, 2009.
b. Applicants must be able to substantiate their claim that they have been living in Barbados for at least eight years prior to December 31, 2005.
c. Applicants must be currently employed and must provide evidence of their employment status.
d. Applicants must pass through security background checks.

I am very amazed at the amount of discussion on this topic.

The foreign reserves of this country cannot support our lifestyles.We need to be very cautious until at least the tourism sector recovers.

Even if we could mange with the existing immigrants ,we simply must discourage others from coming.

@Anonymous @ 2.32pm
“I am very amazed at the amount of discussion on this topic.”

Things that matter to people should get them agitated and they should speak up. Even though I may not like the tone and language some adopt, and I am here taking the occasional lick, it’s healthy (in the broadest of senses–though I need reinforcements :-)). If you have an apathetic citizenry then woe betide you.

@livinginbarbados

“If you have an apathetic citizenry then woe betide you.”

Very true; I think we are a recovering one. Lucky it did not go any further.

@ROK
I try to keep things in perspective. Look at Michael Jackson’s debt of US$400+ millions (before the cancelled comeback concert, that may add US$300 million), and think of Barbados’ external reserves or its debt level.

There are a few issues here that need to be mentioned.

Firstly, let us focus on the main issue, which is the regularisation of immigration status in these islands.

Is is correct that,

– a country must establish proper policies and procedures for governing its citizenship and residence. To suggest otherwise is ignorant and completely out of line with international policies, particularly in light of events post September 11th.

Can you imagine if the international community including the USA did not think that we have control of our borders?

Every where we turn to on the internet we read of terrorism and drug smuggling.

One of the methods used to counteract such illicit activities is the control of borders, example being the huge discussion currently on the USA and Mexican border.

So, along with all of the infinite other activities that Barbados must comply with internationally, we also must secure our borders. While not accusing any other nationality specifically of implication in illicit activities, the mere inadequacy of our control, would facilitate illicit activity, by whomever.

This is a given and all the people who work in international agencies know this.

– It is a policy internationally used, that one must apply for Visas or residency in order to enter and live in any country.

Why should Barbados be any different?

– For a working Visa, one must adhere to specific regulations, including approval of specific qualifications and skills, including clean criminal records etc. How do we know whether any or indeed how many of the incoming immigrants have clean records? Why should we not know?

Therefore, the Barbados Government is merely adhering to an international approach in addressing this issue.

That this was not addressed before is more of an indictment on the previous adminstration than on the current one for acting on the issue.

I am not saying that Guyanese or any other islanders cannot work here.

Indeed, on other discussion topics, I have noted that other non-nationals from other geographic locations have been sought for jobs that should easily be filled by Barbadians and raise this as part of the issue.

What I am saying is that the policies and procedures of immigration, must be regularised and the Government is right to do so.

The question then is, why is this issue confrontational, why is this an issue in the first place?

The answer lies in who benefits from the furor.

The Opposition, quite unnecessarily in my opinion, makes an issue out of this and perceivably attempts to gain political mileage.

The leaders of other Caricom nations, cry foul, in order to protect an easy job market for their citizens i.e. Barbados.

This is highly unnecessary, as no one has said that Guyanese or any others will not work here.

The issue is the proper regularisation of all persons entering, such that Government planning and actions, from infrastructural to social services, can be managed effectively.

Indeed, I recommended joint ventures between Barbados and Guyana, in commercial enterprises such as vegetable production and distribution, on a previous discussion elsewhere.

The issue of anti-Guyanese sentiment etc, does not hold.

On the issue of Caricom viability, this issue is a red herring, introduced to cloud the issue.

On another blog discussion, I raised the matter of the discussion and statements by the PM of T&T, St.Vincent and Grendad, that occurred last year, well before the matter of immigration in Barbados, came to the fore.

That discussion referred to an intention of those Governments, T&T etc, to form a political and economic union, without indicating any relationship to Caricom.

It was also then stated that the discussions were close to closing with a timeframe in mind.

How could those Governemtns have even thought of entering into such a union, without considering the impact on Caricom?

By the evidence, it is clear that Caricom was not even considered, or considered irrelevant to such union.

You cannot have little sub-unions within Caricom, it would defeat the intention and purpose of Caricom, not to mention make the administration, setting of policies and operations, unmaneagable.

This was evidence that within the minds of those leaders and indeed, by the intended action of union, Caricom is and will be irrelevant.

Thus, any accusations blaming the current Government of Barbados for its actions within the context of Caricom, are not only trite but irrelevant and merely an attempt to place blame.

The PM of T&T, the PM of St.Vincent, the PM of Grenada must answer to the expected political union with the islands, as having a bearing on the future viability of Caricom.

This is critical to going forward.

Recently, the PM of T&T has raised his concern for the islands in the light of the gloabl economic crisis, noting that they need T&T’s support.

I reiterate, that the timing of discussions on the aforementioned union, made it completely unrelated to this latest matter being discussed, of the Barbados immigration regularisation.

The reasons for the T&T Government’s interest in the islands, may be very interesting, possibly having more to do with maritime boundaries than anything else, unless PM Manning’s actions are truly altruistic.

Nevertheless, the conclusion that must be reached is that Government is not only acting within its sovereign rights, as ststed by others, but out of necessity in applying international codes and in order to govern effectively, as is their mandate.

Peace

@lholder

Email to BU and we will insert the file in the relevant comment box.

@lholder

Click on the button on the top right of this page or on the Feedback button. Both options will get to us.

We avoid typing the email to avoid spamming.

In seeking to see what sort of balance there is in people’s arguments, I’m intrigued at the relative silence (so far) regarding today’s Editorial in The Advocate, entitled “What’s the real number?”, http://www.barbadosadvocate.com/newsitem.asp?more=editorial&NewsID=4617. In case the link does not work after today, I reproduce the full text below:

7/1/2009

When discussing a topic as controversial and emotionally charged as immigration, even the most respected of thinkers can find themselves carried away on a tide of rhetoric. What often manages to bring persons around to some sort of understanding is the use of cold, hard facts – that is, statistics.

For this reason the Prime Minister’s presentation of the figures compiled by the Immigration Department was welcomed by many who were eager to get a clearer picture of the problem. According to the Immigration Department’s records, four Guyanese citizens have been deported since June 1. However, the picture has once again been blurred with the publication of Guyana’s own immigration figures in the Stabroek News yesterday. In a brief interview with Foreign Minister Caroline Rodrigues-Birkett on Monday, it was revealed that Guyanese Immigration records show that 24 Guyanese have been deported from Barbados for the month of June.

The disparity between these two figures is too great to be overlooked and begs further exploration.

First, the wording of the statements of the two Government officials must be analysed. Some may say this is an exercise in semantics, but when it comes to the Law, this is of paramount importance!

Referring to visits of immigration and police personnel to 15 residences since June 1, the Prime Minister said: “These visits led to the detention and removal of 47 non-nationals, 34 of whom were Guyanese nationals who were in the country illegally. Eight persons were deported, 4 of whom were Guyanese”. Meanwhile, the Stabroek article, while not quoting the Guyanese Foreign Minister verbatim, is worded as follows: “…for June, so far, the foreign minister said, 24 Guyanese have been deported from the island”.

Now, information from the Barbados Immigration Department revealed that when a person is “removed” they are given notice that they are expected to leave the country and should not return for at least one year. However, if a person is “deported” they are issued with a deportation order that is signed by the Minister and they are banned from re-entering the country until such order is lifted by the Minister.

Therefore, it begs the question – were both officials using the same terminology? Or was one official being a bit less precise with the circumstances under which some of these 24 Guyanese have returned their home country?

If the latter is the case, the picture once again changes.

If 34 Guyanese have been notified of removal and 4 deported, it follows that there are 38 Guyanese individuals who should have returned to Guyana since June 9th (the date of the first immigration visit in June according to the Prime Minister). This brings the figure much closer to the 24 persons recorded by the Guyanese Immigration Department, although there are still questions to be asked as to the whereabouts of the unaccounted for 14 persons.

At this point, this is all conjecture on our part, but it is hoped that our reasoning is closer to the truth than what the Stabroek News article is suggesting – that the figure of four deportees “contrasts sharply with immigration figures” in Guyana of 24. A contrast of that magnitude calls into question the honesty of both Barbadian and Guyanese officials in providing information to the public and is an insult to the intelligence of the populace of both countries. Surely the Minister responsible for Immigration in Barbados would remember signing 20 more deportation orders than reported?

Statistics are vital in such complex matters and should not be left open to interpretation, which is just what has happened. Clarification on this issue is
warranted.