Guyana’s newly concluded migration cooperation framework with the United States raises many a question, none of which have so far been answered. It is not enough for the government to issue a joint press statement with US authorities. It must be fully transparent. Guyanese deserve to be privy to the fine print in an agreement that was signed without any public or parliamentary consultation, since it is possible that citizens will be affected in the long run.
According to the statement, the arrangement is temporary. It said Guyana will receive a limited, vetted number of skilled and non-criminal individuals through the International Organization for Migration’s (IOM) Assisted Voluntary Return Programme. It added that Guyana retains the right to reject anyone proposed for relocation. The United States will bear the cost and the IOM will provide accommodation and support.
It is worth noting here that under the heading ‘Returns to a third country’ on its website, the IOM states: “In some cases — based on agreements between States — migrants are transferred not to their country of origin but to a third country where they have been granted the right to enter and stay. IOM does not negotiate or endorse these agreements and plays no role in the transfer itself.
“Where the receiving state requests IOM’s support, IOM may provide humanitarian assistance or support access to essential services for migrants who have arrived in that third country, subject to the same protection assessment described above. [That clause reads – ‘Before engaging, IOM conducts its own independent protection assessment to confirm that the individual has been formally admitted, that their rights and dignity can be upheld, that the operating environment is conducive to an IOM intervention, and that meaningful consent can be obtained. IOM will not provide assistance where these conditions are not met.’]
“In addition, individuals in a third country who wish to return voluntarily to their country of origin may request IOM’s support to do so. This onward movement is handled through standard AVRR [Assisted Voluntary Return and Reintegration] procedures — it is migrant-initiated and consent-based.”
This explains the section of the statement which indicates that the people coming here will have chosen Guyana voluntarily. They will remain here while their immigration status is determined and will subsequently either return to their countries of origin or relocate elsewhere of their choosing. Their presence is therefore not supposed to amount to permanent resettlement.
But that explanation raises an obvious question. What if “elsewhere of their choosing” turns out to be Guyana? The statement said that the arrangement does not constitute open-ended residency. Fine. But what is the legal mechanism for ensuring that someone whose immigration status has been determined does, in fact, leave, if that person decides they want to remain in now oil-rich Guyana? What happens if the individual has established relationships here, obtained employment, developed a business interest or simply decides that Guyana is preferable to returning to the country from which he or she came? These are not fanciful questions and the government should not wait until any such situation arises to decide what to do.
The announcement referred to a “limited” number and did not specify how many people might ultimately come here. While Forward Guyana Movement MP Amanza Walton-Desir has quoted a reported number of 144 a year, that figure should be clarified by the government rather than left to speculation.
Indeed the reference to “limited” is also problematic. It can mean six people or something else entirely. Citizens are entitled to know the maximum number contemplated by the agreement, whether that number can be increased, who has the authority to approve an increase and whether Parliament has any role in such a decision.
Another question surrounds the word “skilled”. What precisely qualifies someone as skilled? What occupations are being prioritised? Are Guyanese authorities identifying areas in which there are shortages? Will those coming here be permitted to work while their status is being determined? If so, under what conditions?
As regards costs, every person who enters a country becomes part of its legal, social and administrative framework. There may be demands on immigration authorities, law enforcement, health services, legal services and other institutions. Even if those charges are initially covered by the US, what happens when that support ends, or is it open-ended?
This brings us back to the central question. The statement said that the arrangement is temporary. But nonpermanent arrangements have a way of becoming complicated when human beings, rather than statistics, are involved.
The statement acknowledged that those relocated must retain the right to seek international protection where applicable, with the IOM facilitating referrals to the UNHCR in coordination with Guyanese authorities. What happens then? How long could that process take? What status would the person acquire while the matter is being considered? These questions encompass sovereignty and law and do not by any means imply a lack of concern for the plight of migrants.
Indeed, Guyana has every right to participate in international humanitarian arrangements, and there is nothing inherently objectionable about assisting people caught in difficult circumstances. But humanitarianism and transparency should not be treated as opposing principles. A country can demonstrate compassion while insisting that the rules governing such an arrangement are clear.
The agreement has been described as another manifestation of the close Guyana-US relationship. That relationship is undoubtedly important, but since it holds implications for Guyana’s immigration policy and sovereignty, it should be subjected to careful public scrutiny. There is nothing unreasonable about asking questions. In fact, the sooner they are answered, the better for all concerned – the people arriving here, the Guyanese public and even the government. An agreement of this nature should never depend on assumptions about what people will eventually choose to do. It should anticipate those choices and make clear, before they arise, what happens next.
Discussion