The Alliance For Change (AFC) on Thursday called on the government to publish its migration agreement with the United States and submit the arrangement to debate in the National Assembly, accusing it of keeping Guyanese in the dark until the first group of third-country nationals had arrived.
In a statement, the party condemned what it described as the secretive manner in which the arrangement was negotiated and implemented.
“The most egregious aspect is not simply that the Government volunteered Guyana for this programme. It is that the people of Guyana only learned that the arrangement existed after foreign media reported that the first wave of deportees had already arrived,” the AFC said.
Six persons—four Cubans and two Afghans—reportedly arrived here last Friday, one day before the governments of Guyana and the United States publicly announced the migration cooperation framework.
The government has said the agreement will run for one year and allow Guyana to receive a “limited, vetted number of skilled and non-criminal individuals” through the International Organization for Migration’s (IOM) Assisted Voluntary Return Programme.
Under the arrangement, Guyana retains the right to review and reject anyone proposed for relocation. The United States will meet the full cost of the relocation process, while the IOM will provide housing and other support.
The government has said the programme is temporary and does not amount to permanent resettlement. Those relocated here are expected to remain while their immigration status is determined, after which they could return to their countries of origin or relocate elsewhere.
The AFC, however, questioned why the public and National Assembly were not informed while negotiations were taking place.
“The Government now says that negotiations took place for months. If so, why were Guyanese citizens not informed? Why was the National Assembly not given an opportunity to examine an arrangement with obvious implications for Guyana’s sovereignty, immigration policy and national security?” the party asked.
The AFC also sought details about the IOM’s role and questioned what would happen if persons brought here decided to remain permanently.
Kiskadee Watch reported that while the agreement referred to a “limited” number of persons, it did not disclose the maximum number who could be accepted.
Forward Guyana Movement MP Amanza Walton-Desir had cited an unconfirmed figure of as many as 12 persons per month for 12 months, potentially amounting to 144 persons. She did not identify the source of that information and the figure was not included in the government’s announcement.
Questions have also been raised about the immigration status under which the persons entered and will remain in Guyana, whether they will be permitted to work and what would happen if they cannot return to their countries of origin or relocate elsewhere.
The AFC referred to comments by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio describing some persons being deported by the United States as “the worst people we have ever interacted with”. The party acknowledged that the remark might have been made in another context but said it underscored the need for transparency about who would be sent here.
However, the Guyana-US announcement expressly described those eligible under this arrangement as skilled and non-criminal, subject to vetting and approval by the Guyanese authorities.
The AFC demanded an account of all commitments made and called for continuing parliamentary scrutiny of the programme.
“Guyana remains a sovereign republic and international cooperation is welcome. However, secret agreements affecting the people of Guyana are not,” the party said.
The Guyana Human Rights Association and opposition MPs Sherod Duncan and Walton-Desir have also called for the complete agreement to be published.
Discussion