Deportee deal

Sep 10, 2026 Editorial, News

---

(Kaieteur News) – There is nothing inherently objectionable about Guyana helping people caught in difficult circumstances. This country has a long tradition of hospitality and Guyanese should not suddenly become indifferent to the plight of foreigners simply because their circumstances have become politically inconvenient.

If six people: four Cubans and two Afghans have arrived here after being vetted, have no criminal backgrounds, and have voluntarily agreed to come, there is no justification for treating them as criminals or threats merely because they were removed from the United States. But compassion cannot be allowed to become a substitute for accountability. That is where the Government of Guyana now finds itself.

The administration has confirmed a one-year migration cooperation framework with the United States under which a limited number of vetted, non-criminal and skilled third-country nationals may be accommodated in Guyana through the International Organization for Migration (IOM). The United States will bear the financial cost, while the IOM will provide housing, support and other services. Guyana says it retains the sovereign right to reject any individual proposed for relocation.

On paper, those safeguards are reassuring. But they do not answer all the questions. Indeed, the Government’s own explanation raises perhaps the most important question: if the IOM is responsible for implementing the programme but does not assume Guyana’s legal responsibilities for admission, legal stay, protection or removal, who in Guyana is responsible for those functions, and under what legal framework?

That is not an academic question. It goes to the heart of sovereignty. The Government cannot simultaneously tell the public that Guyana retains complete control while leaving unclear how that control is to be exercised in practice. There is another matter that cannot be ignored, the secrecy surrounding the agreement. The arrangement was reportedly negotiated over several months, yet Guyanese were not presented with the full terms before the first group arrived. The public has instead been given a broad outline of what the agreement supposedly does and does not entail.

The Government should release the agreement in its entirety, subject only to legitimate privacy protections for the individuals involved. There is a fundamental difference between protecting the identity and personal information of six human beings and withholding the legal terms of an international arrangement from the population.

How many people can Guyana be asked to receive during the one-year period? Is there a numerical ceiling? What happens if Washington makes a request that Georgetown considers unacceptable? What are the precise circumstances under which an individual can be removed from Guyana? What domestic agency has responsibility for monitoring legal status? What happens if an individual seeks asylum or other protection?

And what happens when the one-year framework expires?

These are reasonable questions, not anti-American questions. Nor should criticism of the arrangement be dismissed as opposition politics. The concerns raised by the Guyana Human Rights Association, opposition parliamentarians and others deserve serious consideration, particularly where constitutional protections and international obligations are concerned. Reports from some other countries involved in third-country deportation arrangements have generated disturbing human-rights concerns. That should make Guyana more determined—not less—to establish robust safeguards of its own. The fact that another government may have handled deportees badly is not proof that Guyana will do likewise.  But neither should Guyana wait for something to go wrong before establishing safeguards.

The Government has repeatedly emphasised that the arrangement is temporary, voluntary, limited and humanitarian. If that is indeed the case, transparency should pose no threat. There is also a legitimate domestic concern about capacity.

Guyanese citizens continue to demand better electricity, water, healthcare, housing and public security. It is therefore reasonable to ask whether the State has the institutional capacity to assume additional responsibilities, even where the immediate financial costs are being covered by international partners.

This does not mean Guyanese must come first in every humanitarian calculation at the expense of everyone else. It means the Government must demonstrate that helping others does not weaken its obligations to those who elected it. Guyana is no longer a small, obscure country whose international decisions attract little attention. Its growing geopolitical importance means that every agreement entered into with a major power deserves greater scrutiny, not less.

---

• Deportee deal, Editorial, foreigners, hospitality

---