What we need to know
Certainly, what is important for the citizens is a comprehensive, justificatory approach, which include but are not limited to; method of financing of this venture, skills set of nationals, housing allowances, social and cultural integration schemes to be organised locally for these non-nationals, social protection system assessments, and the extent to which the public systems will be able to adequately respond to the added peoples. Moreover, the administration must ensure that widespread engagement of the citizens occurs to alleviate their genuine fears, on questions of displacement, ineffective economic futures and unemployment. It is immaterial whether the fears are legitimate or reasonable to receive the audience of political representatives.
A culture of justification must also countenance our position on Haitian migrants, recognising that if any deportees or migrants need Caribbean solidarity, it is the people of Haiti who have been affected by a multiplicity of internal and exogenous shocks that affect the nation state.
David Rudder in Haiti I’m Sorry is thus the most instructive when he sang: “When there is anguish in Port au Prince, it is still Africa crying, we are outing fires in far away places, when our neighbours are just burning… I refuse to believe that we, good people, will forever turn our hearts, and our eyes… away… Haiti, I’m Sorry, we misunderstood you, and one day we will turn our heads and look inside you.”
What is problematic from interpersonal engagement is our resort to quiet xenophobia and fears of the ‘others’ – becoming exactly what we despise within the US.
‘Who are these people or criminals that they bringing here to drain the public purse, and why not send them back where they come from’, without having any understanding or knowledge and also our own historical context of being a migratory people who were also told these same idioms, and ignoring that ‘these’ people have skill set too, and can assist. Of course, this decolonisation of the mind must be part of our political programme.
Professor Robinson suggested that “every choice carries consequences, and the consequences fall on ordinary citizens, on visa applications, trade relationships, on opportunities opened or foreclosed and this is why the Caribbean citizen must understand what their leaders are navigating, and and being imperiled by the global power we do not have the luxuries of grand gestures, and our leverage are at times limited, but is in our regional solidarity.”
Lastly, there must be a paradigm shift in mindset and policy. As I argued in another piece entitled “America’s migrants but our people,” there must be an aggressive focus on incentivising living and working within the Caribbean, thereby reducing migration as a necessity.
Our mindset must also rise above partisan finger-pointing in cheap and sometimes unintelligent island politics, gleefully at the announcement of these policies. For aeons, the developed world has indeed benefited from brain drain, due to the presence of economic opportunities. ‘What Lucia have for me’ is one of the questions I have had to answer. While brain drain has advanced us, through remittances, exporting of global talent, it has also affected and deprived us of the human resource that remains our only resource.
As such, the Caribbean should focus on, incentivising employment and land acquisition, stock taking and job creation in new and emerging areas that are in sync with the professions of our diaspora, concretising of our diaspora policy that creates a robust incentives regime and economic policy that encourages return, collaboration with the private sector to fill some of the employment gaps, aggressive participation and push for the full freedom of movement across CARICOM such that individuals in the diaspora are not limited to Saint Lucia, reduction in the barriers across CARICOM, the dedication of a special unit to seek out jobs for young people studying abroad and within the region, and last but by no means least, the imbuing of patriotism that causes an affinity and obligation to contribute.
Sir Derek Walcott’s words are instructive and worthy of reflection in an insular world, when he noted: “Moi c’est gens Ste. Lucie, c’est là moi sorti.”
With all due respect – I am neither SLP nor UWP. However, I am not certain what the government in St. Lucia is embarking on in relation to receiving non St. Lucians on their shores from the US. Is this a quid pro quo scenario?????
However, what I do know is that St. Lucia is ill-equipped to handle their own issues relative to gangs and criminal activity. Therefore, why do they think they would be able to deal with these US issues????
The USA is large enough with adequate resources to handle their own issues – let them (the USA) fix their own problems which they have created and continue to create. Amen
Every decision that the government of st.lucia does, whether slp/uwp is questionable.how can a small island as st.lucia accommodate migrants from the usa when resources are already so limited to the local population. In 2025 they issued over 6000 working permits to foreigners and this year who knows how much more jobs opportunities to local st lucians will be lost.how can a government with any rewards to the local population engage in such decision making.Its obvious that these politicians don’t give one whoops about the local people.
The author still continues to practice the “tomfoolery” he has been allowed to learn, for garnering popular support for himself, towards his ultimate aims of becoming a chieftain in one of the failing empire’s lesser colonies/plantations – St. Lucia.
Paraphrasing William J. Casey, CIA Director (1981): “We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the [St. Lucian] public believes is false.”