The government’s cock-and-bull excuse

Dec 10, 2020 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Kaieteur News – The explanation provided, as to why Guyana cannot accept the estimated 1,000 Cubans who have assembled at South Drain in Suriname, is untenable. That explanation has been provided by the Hon. Attorney General who has unconventionally struggled to sound convincing.
The Attorney General (AG) is reported as saying that Guyana does not have the facilities to handle such a large influx of Cubans, which he says amounts to thousands. But it is the same thousands who would have come through the airports, in any event, had the country’s borders been opened earlier. And just what facilities is the Attorney General referring to?
The AG says that the government has a responsibility to provide for its citizens before it extends similar courtesies to others. The Attorney General is no doubt referring to the social costs associated with migrants. He is implying that allowing an influx of Cubans will place a charge on public funds – that is, these persons may utilize Guyana’s free health and education or that the State may be required to support them while in Guyana.
This is poppycock. The Cubans who come here are contributing to the economic development of the country and are no burden on the State.
It is estimated that in normal times, some 1,000 Cubans arrive each week in the country through the airports. If each one of these spends US$2,000 in the country, then it means that the country earns more than US$100M alone from the Cubans. This is four times what is earned from the exportation of sugar. This is not counting the Cuban’s contributions to rents and to payments for medical services.
Many of the Cubans come here in order to process their permanent visa applications for the United States. They come to attend interviews at the US Embassy in Guyana. It is cheaper for them to come here to source the consular service. They pay for their medicals thereby helping to support the medical system in Guyana. The Mercy Hospital does good business because of the Cubans applying for their permanent immigrant status.
Cubans spend a lot of money on Regent Street. They can be seen shopping in droves. While in Guyana, they buy food, use the public transport system and rent apartments – more contributions to the local economy.
A number of Cubans are employed locally. Without the Cubans to provide translation, most of the commercial shops would not be able to cater for the Cubans who come here to shop. Cubans are also involved in the construction sector; they work cheaper and harder than most.
The Cubans are well-organized and are making a positive contribution to the economy. They are not engaged in the provision of sex services. They are not known to be part of any trafficking ring. They are not a burden on anyone, the least of which are public funds.
So, why suddenly have the Cubans become unwelcome? This change in government’s attitude to the Cubans may be linked to the recent visit of a high-level delegation from Brazil. And it may also have something to do with the Haitians.
It is likely that the Brazilians would have raised the issue of illegal immigration from Guyana. It is known that thousands of Haitians enter Guyana but there is no record of most of them leaving. It is suspected that most of them make the overland journey and cross into Brazil. It is possible that Brazil may have weighed on Guyana the need to restrict this illegal movement.
Recently more than two dozen Haitians were detained in Guyana. It would raise issues of inconsistent treatment if the government were to be seen as facilitating Cubans while denying entry to Haitians.
Guyana had amended its laws to allow for Haitians to be granted free movement under the Caribbean Single Market and Economy. Haiti is a member of the Caribbean Community and the Community is operating under the legal opinion that Haitians are also entitled to an automatic six-month entry into a member state.
However, as was decided in the Shanique Myrie case, Member States are allowed to deny entry to undesirables – persons who have been involved in certain activities or who are suspected to be involved in certain undesirable activities, including overstaying or unlawful acts. Member States are also allowed to deny entry if they are of the view that the person would constitute a charge on public funds, that is they would stay on as an illegal migrant and utilize the country’s public services.
If the government suspects that any migrant involved in an act of human trafficking or any criminal act, such a person can be denied entry. Once such evidence is available on a basis of suspicious exists, then the State is within its right to deny entry.
No one can therefore come to Guyana and claim that they have an absolute right to six months stay by virtue of the free movement of persons being citizens of a Caricom State. But similarly, someone should not be denied entry simply because they are in-transit to another country. It would be a different situation, however, if this safe passage involves illegal actions, including illegally exiting the country or being part of a human trafficking ring.
The government has to treat each case on its merit. A blanket denial of entry is a violation of migrant rights. It is also counterproductive considering the economic benefits which migrants generate.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)

---

---