Latest update September 28th, 2026 10:20 AM
The sweetest bend-over
(Kaieteur News) – Why is it that Guyana is accepting people deported from the United States who have committed no crime, have no connection to Guyana and, in some cases, may never have set foot in this country before. The government says they are non-criminal, vetted and skilled, and that they have voluntarily agreed to come here, but those assurances do not answer the larger question of why Guyana should become part of a system in which America exports its immigration problem to other countries.
This is not simply a case of six people arriving in Guyana, four from Afghanistan and two from Cuba, under a one-year arrangement involving the International Organisation for Migration. It is about a principle, and whether a country such as Guyana should lend itself to an international policy in which powerful countries remove unwanted migrants to countries that are neither their homes nor places with which they have meaningful ties.
The principal criticism of this policy is precisely that the United States is exporting its immigration problem. Amnesty International says the United States has increasingly been sending people to countries they are not from, where they may never have lived, have no family or community connections and may not even speak the language, leaving them in precarious and stressful circumstances far from their normal support networks.
Guyana should understand the significance of what it is doing because we are a country with nationals living as immigrants all over the world. Guyanese live in the United States, Canada, Britain, the Caribbean and virtually every corner of the world, and it is difficult to imagine how we would feel if another country decided that Guyanese who had no criminal record should simply be sent to some third country with which they had no connection.
Guyana is effectively involving itself in a vicious anti-immigrant campaign being waged not only in the United States but in other parts of the world. For a country whose own people have migrated in large numbers, often in search of security, opportunity and a better life, becoming a willing participant in the externalisation of another country’s immigration policy is counter-intuitive.
The government places considerable emphasis on the word “voluntary”, saying that nobody will be accepted unless he or she freely agrees to relocation. But human-rights organisations have rightly questioned how voluntary such a decision can be when the alternative may be detention in the United States, removal to a country where the person fears persecution or an uncertain future in the American immigration system.
What choices actually confront these people when they are asked to volunteer for Guyana? Is the choice really between coming to Georgetown and going home, or does it sometimes amount to choosing between an uncertain third country and continued detention, with the possibility of being sent somewhere such as El Salvador’s notorious CECOT prison?
Human Rights Watch has documented cases of third-country nationals being expelled from the United States to Panama and Costa Rica after being denied meaningful opportunities to pursue asylum claims.
This should concern Guyana because we could become vicariously involved in depriving people of a meaningful opportunity to pursue their rights under the US immigration system. Human Rights Watch reported that among people sent to Panama and Costa Rica were nationals of Afghanistan, Russia, China, Iran, Cameroon and other countries, and that many said they had sought asylum or expressed fears of persecution but were not given a proper opportunity to present their claims.
(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)
Share this:
Discover more from Kaieteur News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Similar Articles
One thought on “The sweetest bend-over”
Leave a Reply
Website Hits
Blunt of the day
Sports
Features/Columnists
Sir. Ronald Sanders
The GHK Lall Column
Weekend Cartoon
This is a most troubling trend and has futuristic negative effects on the very welfare of Human Freedom and Liberation and is directly trading in Human trafficking with the USA that Guyana is in cahoots with.
Why Guyana Should Reject Participation in a U.S. Displacement Scheme**
Guyana should firmly decline any arrangement that turns the country into a receiving ground for migrants whom the United States has chosen to remove without guaranteeing due process. The pattern seen in Panama, Costa Rica, and other states — where third‑country nationals from Afghanistan, Russia, China, Iran, Cameroon and beyond were transferred after expressing fears of persecution or requesting asylum — is a warning sign. Guyana must not allow itself to become another link in a chain of displacement that undermines international protection standards.
1. It Undermines International Asylum Norms.
When individuals say they fear persecution or have attempted to seek asylum, they are entitled under international law to a fair and meaningful opportunity to present their claims. If the U.S. relocates such individuals before those claims are heard, Guyana becomes complicit in a process that bypasses established refugee protections.
Guyana should not accept people whose rights were denied elsewhere.
2. “Voluntary Return” Is Often Not Truly Voluntary.
Schemes branded as “Assisted Voluntary Return” frequently mask coercion. People may “agree” to relocation only because the alternative is detention, deportation to danger, or indefinite limbo. Guyana should not legitimize a system where consent is shaped by fear rather than genuine choice.
3. Guyana Risks Becoming a Dumping Ground Despite Assurances.
Even if the U.S. claims Guyana has veto power, the reality is that once the pipeline is established, pressure grows. Guyana could quickly find itself absorbing individuals who were denied due process, denied asylum hearings, or removed under questionable circumstances.
Participation today creates expectations tomorrow.
4. Guyana Lacks the Institutional Capacity to Guarantee Protection.
Proper asylum screening, legal aid, trauma‑informed services, long‑term integration pathways, and monitoring mechanisms require robust institutions. Guyana’s current systems are not designed to absorb displaced persons from multiple conflict zones. Accepting them without adequate infrastructure risks exposing vulnerable people to exploitation, destitution, or unsafe onward movement.
5. It Damages Guyana’s Sovereignty and International Standing.
Agreeing to receive migrants rejected by a powerful state sets a precedent: Guyana becomes a convenient solution for others’ political and administrative problems. This erodes Guyana’s ability to assert its own migration policies and could harm its reputation as a rights‑respecting nation.
6. It Creates Social and Security Risks Without Clear Benefits.
Even if the U.S. funds initial housing and support, Guyana inherits long‑term responsibility. Without clear pathways to status, employment, or onward resettlement, people may become trapped in limbo. This creates social tension, economic strain, and potential security concerns — all avoidable by refusing the arrangement outright.
7. Guyana Should Not Enable Outsourcing of Human Rights Obligations.
If the U.S. is relocating people who may have legitimate asylum claims, Guyana’s participation helps normalize a troubling trend: powerful countries shifting their responsibilities onto smaller states. Guyana should stand firmly against any system that treats vulnerable people as logistical burdens rather than rights‑holders.
Conclusion: A Clear and Principled No
Guyana should reject participation in any displacement scheme that allows the U.S. to sidestep its asylum obligations. Unless every individual has been guaranteed full due process, genuine consent, and long‑term protection — conditions that are rarely met — Guyana’s answer must be a clear big NO in clear language. NO.
A principled refusal protects Guyana’s sovereignty, upholds international human‑rights standards, and prevents the country from becoming an endpoint for people who were denied justice elsewhere.
Do you realize this is just the beginning of a journey into chattel Slavery – a system that the all Guyanese are familiar with?
Please examine this Human trading proposal again.
What is the difference between Captured Human (of War turned into Slaves) and captured Deportees and exporting them to another Country?
Victor19