NOW that the Caribbean Community’s 30th Heads of Government Conference in Guyana is over, it is relevant to note that the controversy that erupted over the issue of “sovereign right” by a member state to introduce its “domestic immigration policy” should not have been manifested as occurred as this right was NOT questioned by ANY government of CARICOM. In existence for 36 years, CARICOM is recognised as a “Community of sovereign states” committed to regional economic integration and functional cooperation with the creation of a single market and single economy (CSME) under the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas as its flagship project.

The fury exhibited by officialdom, first in Barbados and later in Antigua and Barbuda, with war of words involving governing and opposition parties, and later extended to sharp political criticisms in St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Guyana and Jamaica, had to do with recurring claims of hostile and degrading treatment of CARICOM nationals, mostly Guyanese but Vincentians and Jamaicans also being victims.

In the case of Barbados, by the time Prime Minister David Thompson was ready to talk reassuringly in Georgetown of his government’s intention to conduct an “independent review” of allegations made against immigration authorities, the victims of ill treatment–incidentally during the first month of a six-month amnesty–had already been “removed” and sent to their native land.

Antigua and Barbuda, where both the governing United Progressive Party (UPP) of Prime Minister Baldwin Spencer and the previous government of Lester Bird’s Antigua Labour Party (ALP) had benefitted from a claimed “liberal immigration policy” towards CARICOM nationals – mainly from the Dominican Republic, Jamaica and Guyana – has now disclosed its intention to review its “liberal” approach, due to increasing social and economic pressures.

While in Guyana, Prime Minister Spencer said that CARICOM nationals now account for one third of his country’s electorate. He offered no data in support of the cost to social services to accommodate the non-nationals. Nor has the Barbados government, to date, offered statistics to show the extent to which the country’s social services are being taxed by the presence of CARICOM nationals.

It appears that the government, for all the agony it projects, is still not in a position to offer a realistic assessment of “illegal” CARICOM nationals. And compared to the very significant size of CARICOM nationals on Antigua and Barbuda’s electoral register, the situation in Barbados is miniscule.

According to the “summary of electors by country of birth” for last year’s general election, “non-citizens of Barbados” on the electoral register totalled 6,246. Of these, Vincentians accounted for 1,838; Guyanese 1,013; and St. Lucians 1,198– altogether 4,039.

For those now suggesting ulterior political motives for the presence of CARICOM nationals, it should be noted that even if ALL the Guyanese, Vincentians, St Lucians or Trinidadians (the latter numbered 1,345 electors) had voted FOR the then incumbent Barbados Labour Party, the Democratic Labour Party would still have scored its landslide parliamentary victory.

To conclude, for now, while respecting the “sovereign right” claim without condoning the ill treatment meted out CARICOM nationals compelled to leave Barbados in humiliating circumstances, the promised “independent review” should begin. The statistics on what it may have cost Barbados’ social services, at least within the past three years, to accommodate CARICOM nationals should prove illuminating.

Last week’s summit has already unanimously “reaffirmed migration as a human right” consistent with the CARICOM treaty and international law.
(Courtesy yesterday’s Barbados Weekend Nation)