In the past few days, after Minister of Foreign Affairs Alva Baptiste announced that Saint Lucia would be accepting third-country nationals deported from the United States, there has been a lot of public debate. Many people disagree with the government’s decision, criticising it for giving in to US demands, failing to provide enough information to justify the policy, and adopting a coercive approach by Washington.
What’s missing from the conversation is a more thoughtful discussion about the issues surrounding the third-country nationals arrangement. It is not as simple as being supportive or against; the situation is much more complex than that.
People have real concerns about whether Saint Lucia will have to support these individuals with its own resources, or whether the US will provide enough financial help while they are here. It would be interesting to distil whether the latter would provide overwhelming support for the possible third nationals programme, especially since the former does not seem to garner much support, if it were the arrangement. On this point, though, more information must be presented to the citizenry to alleviate their legitimate concerns about the direction of their tax-paying dollars, or whether those dollars would be used at all. Certainly, this greater transparency must include, but not be limited to; ensuring there is full government to government information about the nature of the individuals, acceptance of individuals without criminal backgrounds save and except for immigration law violations or unresolved asylum claims, continued parliamentary scrutiny of the programme with public information being required, and the necessary financial package to cover the transition of these individuals within the society.
Certainly, though, the insulation, isolation, and nationalism of the former are not only political components of right-wing parties, but at times also part of ordinary citizens who believe that, at the expense of their own survival, others from faraway lands may be prioritised. It goes like this: “How can others be coming to my country and receiving possible support when I am in my country and not receiving support?” Even if that may not be the case, perception can be as good as reality in politics, and political officials must be aware of it and work to clarify what is versus what is not.
However, what one must be careful of, is the recent rise in the narrative among some within the society, not borne out of a fear for their material survival or deprivation in comparison to others, but, of these “other” people emanating from distant lands who are supposedly wanton criminals coming only to proverbially be the Devil who will “‘kill, steal and destroy” only increasing our already skyrocketing crime rate.
Obviously, the lack of information on the individuals we are receiving may fuel such anxiety. But the deeper philosophical question is: why, in circumstances where one does not receive sufficient information, is our first retort that everyone who is not a Saint Lucian, coming from abroad, must be a criminal coming to kill, steal and destroy?
Is it because we believe criminality is linked to certain countries or certain types of people? Where does one receive such an impression of citizens of the world from? What countries are these, by the way, and what types of people are they? Or are we shaped by the perceptions from Western news outlets that reinforce hierarchies of people and countries within the world, such that some individuals are only “wanton criminals”, and some countries are only associated with criminality? Nothing more can come out of these countries than that? Is it that we are only supportive of people coming to our shores when they are “tourists” coming for a short stint to spend money in our country? Why is it that it is not possible to also recognise that these individuals can also have skillsets, ambitions, and contribute effectively and studiously towards the Saint Lucian project, in much the same way as others from other countries have? Or is it that deportation from another country, especially when one is not aware of what their “offence” is, should be an immediate death sentence? Where is the Caribbean humanity that lets us understand that our vulnerability in the world can also leave us at the mercy of another country at any time to take in our nationals? Would we also want to be classified as “undesirables” that are not to be taken in their countries, for fear of the unknown?
Ironically, if these are our underlying beliefs, then we are replacing the colonial, racist and baseless attitudes that defined us as “useless, good-for-nothing criminals and primitives that needed to be taught how to be civilised”, by virtue of our skin colour, and concomitant rebellious spirit that decided that it was time for us to be free, with our own versions.
In fact, if we classify these people as “others”, and “undesirables” without knowing them and their skillset and capabilities, and who by the way have minimal say in where they are being deported to, then we would be engaging in no different language and behaviour that we oppose, and that has been utilised to describe us and our Caribbean brothers and sisters, who have been busy building the American and United Kingdom empire, only to be told that they are from “‘shithole” countries. “eating cats and dogs within the US” and that should be thankful that the European enslavement project was not all bad but provided us with a foundation upon which our countries can thrive, such as providing us with the rule of law, democracy, government et cetera, and in which we must pay reparations for.
And of course, the common retort would be the words of the Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who suggested that the deportees would be “the worst of the worst”. What is missing from the nuanced discussion, though, is how some of the evidence emanating from the US deportation schemes from ICE does not suggest that the individuals being detained and deported are all wanton criminals, guilty of violent crimes and threatening US national security. More than that, the US, as the Sunak administration attempted to do, and was blocked by the Courts, has obviated and abdicated its responsibility to deal with its “immigration crisis” by offloading the problem on other countries, as distinct from engaging in the arduous but necessary policy conceptualisation to deal with the issues in a humane, dignified and responsible manner.
In fact, many of the individuals have overstayed their visas, having fled from their countries in search of the American Dream promised to them, as it has long been known as the land of the free and brave. Moreover, there must be some interrogation of our underlying beliefs that suggest that the US has an innate monopoly on deciding the value of citizens, such that if the US determines that one is a “criminal”, every other country in the world must accept this as a strident truth. For this reason, we suggest: ‘If the US doesn’t want these people, why should we?’ It is as if the US has the sole authority to determine the inner nobility and utility of “these” people to the exclusion of themselves and other citizens of this world. In doing so, we do not realise that we are making a value judgement about people based on the US standard, without any evidence to support our perspective. But, in doing so, we do not recognise that not only are we making value judgements on people, classifying them into hierarchies, but we are ignorantly copying and pasting labels from the US, in circumstances where their labels for undesirables include any and every one that is not of American blood, within this new dispensation. Certainly, we can insist on further information without demonising and discriminating against the “unknown”.
Instead, this language is the fig leaf that is utilised as a base upon which to engage in mass deportation, as it fuels the anxiety, anger, and fear of the right-wing base and ordinary citizens, that criminal enterprises are taking over their country from “other countries” and not that the crime and violence is from their own nationals and requires longer term solutions such as improving the economy and engaging in social democratic developments. Put another way, if the goalpost is shifted from one’s citizens to others, and the political elite are bankrupt of ideas for reducing criminality and investing in human development to provide an alternative to crime and violence, the citizens can easily support interventions that focus on the deportation of such individuals, as this is the locus of the problem. Moreover, that the unemployment crisis is not because of the inability of the political elite and private sector to create new jobs, but because the jobs in circulation are being taken by the immigrant population, at the expense of “native Americans”. But this quote is quite instructive when it notes that “When you have destroyed all the mosques and churches, expelled all the immigrants, and your problems still remain, who will you blame then?”
This is not to suggest that there are no criminals among immigrants, as there are criminals in any group in the world. But the central premise is that mere looters as part of a group do not make an entire group criminal. It may be that when we are trying to determine the friends of our children, we suggest, “Show me your friends and I will show you who you are,” but certainly, it is not the case when dealing with a wide, heterogeneous political community. It is anti-intellectual, and intellectually lazy to make such easy generalisations, especially without the benefit of evidence to support such a position.
Now, this is also not to suggest that if these individuals are known convicted criminals, they should be allowed to roam the streets and have their sentences stayed as they are deported. If that is the case, and there is evidence of it, then these individuals should not be permitted into Saint Lucia.
But Professor Justin Robinson is also instructive when he noted in an op-ed piece: “That language of these people being the most despicable human beings was designed for a domestic audience taught to see certain migrants as threats. We do not consume US political theatre; we assess facts. This is the vocabulary of a great power making human beings sound disposable before a receiving country has examined a single file. It may serve US domestic politics, but it must not become our vocabulary. The deportees are not abstractions; they are parents, siblings, neighbours, people who made mistakes, people who sought better lives. That does not erase the rule of law, but it should erase the language of disposal.”
What should, however, steer the conversation – though it is not being focused on, but instead partisan gibberish has prevailed – is a much more learned and philosophical view that questions the unequal and asymmetrical agreement and relationship that we have with the United States of America, such that they constantly propose and we accept. The chief of which is how we are being “asked” to assist the US with their migration crisis, but our Caribbean people continue to face discrimination, deportation, visa bonds and bans, and are told that they too are undesirables and unworthy of the USA, et cetera, under the US migration policy.
Moreover, in circumstances where we may contemplate rejecting their offer, one must be prepared to “counter-tariff” or face the consequences for our economy, society, migration patterns, et cetera. Put another way, because our geography and economic circumstances are inextricably linked with Washington, irrespective of the office holder of Prime Minister, agreements like these are accepted as we remain unafraid and unable to bear the consequences of “visa and travel bans”, among other restrictions.
Professor Robinson is instructive when he noted: “Our geography only compounds our predicaments, such that some of our islands lie closer to Miami than Miami lies to Atlanta, American tourists fill our hotels, American dollars flow through our banks, American visas determine whether our citizens can visit family, American deportation flights return our nationals after decades of residence, and there is no aspect of Caribbean life untouched by American proximity, and our agony of the 15 (as described by Patsy Lewis) is poorly suited to bilateral coercion, and Washington can apply pressure sequentially, and extract concessions from the weakest, and use those to pressure the others, and we are being picked off one by one.”
As such, a much deeper developmental conversation, which evades the partisan gibberish that has occupied the discussion, is the extent to which we can focus on continued self-sufficiency, regional solidarity, and expanding international partners and allies to remove ourselves from this asymmetrical influence continually. Additionally, there must be learned voices within society, particularly among the political elite, that ensure they speak to their citizens, if this is the policy decision being adopted, about the necessary trade-offs and the coercive geopolitical environment that dictates rather than engages in mutual, respectful conversations, et cetera, that such decisions require.
Certainly, it is of no use for political parties to have provided “their alternatives”, suggesting that if they were in this position they would not. This is certainly incorrect, misleading and political, as while each political party may hold their own foreign policy position, the overarching pressure of the US affects each party in much the same manner, especially in circumstances where each party continues to describe the US in glowing terms of being our “partners and friends”. As such, the Leader of the Opposition’s view of the Foreign Minister’s position at the Lima Group is also a blank shot, recognising that even countries that are friendlier to the US, such as the Holness administration in Jamaica, are also accepting deportees from third countries. If the US were certainly picking their enemies to ”dump” people, then wouldn’t they choose all of these “left-wing” countries that are at odds with the political orientation of the President, as opposed to many countries within the Caribbean which are both “democratic” or “republican” in their political outlook?
Instead of political grandstanding, we should focus on what’s actually needed to support third-country nationals. We should also ask why Haitians are being denied entry while we consider accepting people from other countries.
