The document, titled “A Comprehensive Review of Immigration Policy And Proposals For Legislative Reform”, outlines the details of the Government of Barbados’ new immigration policy, which was first tabled in June 2009 by Prime Minister David Thompson.

The controversial policy aims to reduce the number of migrants coming into Barbados, and will make it more difficult for ‘illegal’ immigrants to gain residency status on the island by virtue of the length of time spent in Barbados – a key feature of the former immigration policy.

In June 2009, Prime Minister David Thompson prefaced the proposal for a new immigration policy with an amnesty for undocumented CARICOM migrants, under which they had until December 1, 2009 to regularize their status or face deportation. The amnesty was met with a wave of criticism by CARICOM leaders, which saw Prime Minister Thompson often adopting a defensive stance, stressing that immigrants were quickly becoming a ‘social and economic burden’ on Barbados.

Via the Trinidad Guardian / Photo by Lincoln Adams —

Chinese contract workers from Beijing Liujan Construction Corporation have demanded that they be allowed to go home after claiming that the company has failed to pay them for two months’ work.

Yesterday, more than 100 Chinese workers staged a demonstration on the southbound lane of the Solomon Hochoy Highway. The workers, who were contracted to do work on the Five Rivers project in Chaguanas, started their demonstration at 5 am, causing a massive traffic jam, even on the northbound lane of the highway, as commuters slowed down to look at them. When police arrived on the scene, the workers said they were not being allowed to return to China and were forced to live and work in unfavourable conditions. The police were then informed by the company that some of the workers were in the country illegally.

As a precaution, the police had the protesters escorted to the Immigration Office, Henry Street in Port-of- Spain. When contacted, head of the North/Central Division ACP Shah Mohammed said the Chinese nationals who were detained by police were handed over to immigration officials because some of the detainees’ status in the country needed to be clarified by the Immigration Department. However, when the workers arrived at the Immigration Office, it was discovered that all of the workers were in the country legally and had their work permits. Commercial officer at the Chinese Embassy in Port-of-Spain, Gang Liang, said the embassy’s main role was to ensure that the legal rights of the workers were being observed.

He said the embassy did not condone any illegal or violent activity and he was on hand to ensure a peaceful solution could be met. Liang said it was a strict policy of the embassy to inform all Chinese nationals who entered the country that as foreigners, they were obligated to obey and follow the laws of T&T. He said the embassy would continue to monitor and investigate the situation. A representative of Beijing Construction, Daisy Feng, denied allegations that the workers had not been paid, and said they were not working in poor conditions. Feng said she could not give the exact details of the contracts signed between the company and workers, but said the contracts varied by projects.

She said the majority of the workers had been in Trinidad for 18 months and that the company would be holding talks with them to sort out the situation. After leaving the Immigration Office, the workers went to the Chinese Embassy at Alexandra Street, St Clair, where they continued their protest. But just after 7 pm, heavily-armed police officers took away the workers in police buses. It was unclear, last night, where they were being taken.

With the mountain of data being produced (literally exabytes each year), and the exponentially increasing need for immediate quality data, statistics is now “en vogue”. No longer is the statistician  confined to the government sector, but companies like Google, Netflix, and Amazon all have Statisticians on staff. And with the volume of data expected to grow at an annual growth rate of 60 per cent, the demand for statisticians and data analysts is also expected to grow at alarming rates.

What we have seen over the years is that as the demand for this unique brand of mathematically gifted individuals increase, more and more young people are being drawn to this profession.  This has ushered in a new brand of Statisticians and Data Analysts that are young, multi-disciplined, highly computer literate and even fashionable.

In fact, so much has the statistical profession changed over the years, that it has spawned a whole new category of professionals that are demanding top dollar in the global job market. In today’s world, a degree in statistics gives you the option of also becoming a statistical analyst, or a statistician — add to this training in other disciplines like information technology and biology and you have struck gold. You can easily secure a job as a biostatistician (US$100 thousand per year), data miner (US$110 thousand) or statistical programmer (US$175 thousand) in virtually any country across the globe.

Hal Varian, Chief economist at Google predicts that statistics will yield the top earning jobs in the next ten years. One might be wondering, what lead to this tremendous increase in demand for professionals in this field. The answer is simple; we are now living in the ‘Information Age’. We now live in a world where data is collected on almost everything we do. From the websites we visit, to the things we buy, to the places we go, data is being collected. What this has created is a mountain of data, which requires skilled professionals to break it down into meaningful information. With the advent of globalization, and the reduction in barriers to trade, whether or not a company survives depends on its ability to gather meaningful information before the competition. In the world in which we we now live, a manufacturer’s ability to spot future trends, and to analyse spending patterns could mean the difference between great success and bankruptcy. As such, more and more companies are demanding professionals in the arena of statistics.

On a much larger scale, whether or not a country develops depends critically on their ability to obtain and understand the economic and social statistics produced by the national statistics agency. Data on unemployment and inflation inform fiscal and monetary policy, which charts out the direction an economy takes. Information on international trade and balance of payments speak to the country’s current account balance, and even gives insight into the amount of foreign exchange required for the normal functioning of the economy.

The fact of the matter is, as data continues to grow the demand for analysts and statisticians will continue to increase, as people move away from taking decisions on a whim, and move towards evidence based decision making. We have entered into the information age, and with it has come the dawn of the modern statistician.

The official, who spoke with the Observer from his Washington, DC headquarters last week on condition of anonymity, said that although things may be tough, the strings that tied past agreements between Jamaica and the Fund may not be as tight this time.

“There is no doubt that there will be some amount of pain to be felt by the Jamaican people after this agreement is finalised,” the official said. “The standard of living of Jamaicans may be affected during the life of the agreement. However, we can’t say how tough things will be, or even give an indication. We have a duty to protect social spending and we will insist upon that. The objective and goals of the agreement are still being hammered out, so we can’t say what the conditions under which the loan will be granted will be.”

Finance Minister Audley Shaw last week confirmed that Jamaica would be seeking to draw down US$1.2 billion in support from the IMF through its Special Drawing Rights to shore up the 2009-2010 budget which has suffered internal and external battering, due mainly to the effects of the global recession.

A significant drop in revenue from the bauxite and alumina sector; a fall in remittances, the island’s leading earner of foreign exchange; and shortfalls in income tax and general consumption tax collections have led to the Government’s dilemma and added speed to the Bruce Golding administration’s efforts to seek external funding.

The IMF, which was formed in 1944 to help regulate the world’s economies that had been badly affected by the Second World War, has assisted most of its 186-member countries with funding since.

As far as meeting the September deadline for the loan approval, as is hoped by Jamaica, the official said that it was possible, but many things needed to be done.

“It’s realistic, but they [Jamaican Government] still have work to do, as the process takes a while,” he said. “If it was a case of dire emergency, then a loan package could be approved in less than two weeks. But Jamaica is not melting down, that’s not the case, so there is no mad rush. I understand the anxiety, but these negotiations have their own rhythm.

“The IMF looks at the needs of the country at the time  and adds some security measurements. There are some parameters that a country uses to assess its vulnerability. The IMF will look, for example, at a country’s international reserves and determine how many months of imports they represent. Obviously, the more reserves a country has, it would be in a better position,” he said.

“We have not discussed conditionalities yet with the Jamaica Government, because we don’t know for sure what the Government wants,” added the IMF official. “The Government has more work to do, and right now their technical people are hammering out the details. When that is completed, we will outline the conditionalities. At this point we can’t say to the Government that in order to get the loan, you will have to cut back on this programme or that programme.”

Two funding economists and a press officer from the IMF visited Jamaica last week to hold preliminary talks with government officials, in what was described as a low-profile visit.

There was speculation from Prime Minister Golding that among the first casualty under the IMF agreement would be the chopping of the Constituency Development Fund (CDF), a programme under which each member of parliament is allotted $40 million to spend on projects in his/her constituency.

MPs had hailed the CDF, introduced by the Golding administration, as something that is achieving the desired effect of improving the lives of constituents.

Some financial analysts and government officials have been painting a fresher picture of the IMF as an institution that is not as hostile to Third World countries as it was during the 1970s and 1980s when Jamaica borrowed from the Fund.

“The IMF now is far more liberal than it was in the early years. It is more receptive to the needs of its members and it no longer carries a hard-line position on certain things, like privatisation of government entities,” said the IMF official. “Naturally, we believe that private ownership is always the best, but if governments can show why companies under their control should not be privatised, the IMF would not necessarily stick to its position.”

Jamaica joined the IMF on February 21, 1963. The island last borrowed US$77.75 million from the organisation on December 11, 1992 and paid off that loan on March 16, 1996.
Before that, in the 1990s, Jamaica benefited from loans under the Fund’s stand-by arrangements.

The Jamaica Government borrowed US$82 million on March 23, 1990, which was repaid by May 31 the following year. On June 28, 1992, Jamaica received US$43.65 million under the same stand-by arrangement, and completed its repayment on September 30, 1992.

According to the IMF’s mission statement, its job is to promote a stable international monetary system, in which member countries can achieve high rates of employment, low inflation and sustainable economic growth.

In the meantime, Prime Minister Bruce Golding said Cabinet should by next week have the final proposal from the Ministry of Finance for a stand-by loan facility with the IMF.

Speaking at a press briefing at Jamaica House Monday, Golding said the Government has met with the Opposition, as well as various leaders from the private sector, and trade unions, in seeking to build consensus, before signing off on a Letter of Intent for the IMF.

Golding pointed out that any arrangement with the Fund meant that adjustments would have to be made in the economy, in order to ensure that the country received maximum benefit.

Golding said that one advantage of this type of arrangement was that the country could get the support it needed over that period of adjustment. “For example, you can pay for the oil when it arrives at the dock, secondly, it opens the doors of not only other multilateral institutions, but commercial institutions when they are back in business.”

In brief, here is the reasoning behind that view: the IMF lends money to states on the condition that they make certain fiscal policy decisions. They tend to insist that countries generate fast capital by focusing on primary product exports – food, metals, coffee, etc. At the same time, they insist that states curtail government spending – which includes slashing imports – meaning that states are unable to obtain the materials they would need to industrialize. In essence, states are pressured to sell inexpensive products without the ability to develop a manufacturing infrastructure. They sell cheap and buy expensive.

The downsides here are obvious. States are trapped on the disadvantaged side of uneven terms of trade. They have to buy expensive products from overseas, having no ability to make them at home, while only earning modest revenue from their cheap exports. Moreover, primary product export economies are famously fragile. If a state focuses on selling its abundant supply of, say, pineapples, a minor drop in the global price of tropical fruit can devastate the whole economy. Diversified and industrialized economies, on the other hand, are far less affected by the vicissitudes of the market.

IMF cuts in government spending do not stop with imports. Social services are cut. Wages are lowered. In other words, maintaining a standard of living becomes increasingly difficult for citizens in all walks of life.

The bottom line for most countries that have accepted IMF loans and policies has been failure. They may amass capital in the short-run, but they sacrifice long-term and lasting growth. Meanwhile, the population suffers. Given that this is the outcome more often than not, and given that, in spite of this, the IMF continues to advise the same “band-aid” strategies over and over, many people have come to regard the IMF as some kind of evil, insidious organization.

Still, it is worth keeping in mind that the IMF is asked the impossible: to step into sinking, collapsing economies and save the day. When its efforts fail, it receives all the blame. Furthermore, mistrust of the IMF means it is being approached increasingly later in the process of economies’ decays, making them even more difficult to bail out. Perhaps the IMF’s harsh structural adjustment programs are often the best solution, but frequently, the best solution is not good enough.

Of course this argument has been made before and is highly speculative. The fact is the IMF pushes strategies that rarely work, and has made little effort to adapt or become accommodating to the needs of the borrowing countries. That their inflexible and dubious strategies benefit the West is hard to swallow as coincidence. This, however, does not mean that people should decry the IMF. It means that people should focus their attention on the world leaders who chose to invite the IMF into their homes.

The IMF needs to be regarded as exactly what it appears to be and nothing more: an institution which pushes for harsh social policies in the developing world that benefit the West, and have a chance of benefiting the borrowing country in a specific, limited way. They offer short-term capital at the expense of long-term growth. Sometimes, only sometimes, it is worth borrowing their money.

It is hard to accuse the IMF of equivocation and manipulation when their habits have been clearly established. Disastrous IMF experiences in developing countries these days are the fault of the governments who choose that path.  Countries need to fully understand the IMF before borrowing from it, and by now they have no excuse not to. States need to stop hoping for loopholes in the policies and need to stop hoping that the IMF will change – from this delusion the catastrophes arise. The IMF will not change; it will continue to offer stop-gap solutions which favour Western consumers. If that is what the country needs, governments should accept the cost and live with it. If the country needs something else, governments need to demonstrate the willpower to turn down IMF aid, rather than take out loans and hope for the best.

The IMF is not charitable or flexible, but it delivers what it promises: short term solutions according to a strict, liberal free-market standard. The world has seen how the IMF operates and the price it asks. Leaders need to examine whether or not structural adjustment is appropriate before borrowing. If it turns out that the most important goal is halting the IMF’s perpetuation of West-favouring mechanisms, the solution is not to raise accusations of neo-imperialism after the fact – the solution is walking away.

An ounce of prevention…

However, with the writing now clearly on the wall, they can no longer deny that a return to the IMF may be the only option available to us. The problem is, can a fragile Jamaican economy survive the stringent conditions of a borrowing relationship with the IMF? But, with dying revenue streams, will the government be able to secure financing from other sources in this global financial crisis? As it stands right now, the prospects are dim. Basically, we are damned if we do and damned if we don’t.

The mere mention of the word IMF to the typical Jamaican, elicits a sense of disgust and disdain, as memories of the harsh times of the 70’s and 80’s are conjured up. Difficult economic times of devaluations and layoffs, interest rate hikes and scarcity, budget cuts and social turmoil have characterized our past experience with the IMF. So it is no question that the idea of a return to the IMF would be greeted by dismay from the majority of the Jamaican populous. However with a dim economic outlook and the recent damning predictions by the World Bank, it seems we must bite the bullet and plunge into the deep end.

Given the IMF’s track record of failed Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAPs), the traditional apprehension of the typical Jamaican to the nation’s return to the IMF seems warranted and justified. Empirical evidence shows that very few nations if any can attest to the success of past SAPs, as the implementation of these policies in most nations was followed by periods of severe economic hardships and near collapses of markets. The history of the impact of the effects of IMF policies leaves much to be desired, as is evidenced by their recent utterances.

However, despite recent acknowledgements from the IMF that their traditional one-size-fits-all approach to economic reform has done more harm than good, I am yet to see a significant change in their approach. Their traditional preconditions of devaluation, higher interest rates and cuts in government spending still holds true today, and as such the Jamaican government’s justification of a new IMF simply just is not enough. As one writer puts it, an acknowledgement of past failures is simply not enough to signal a change in the policies of the IMF. There has to be a fundamental shift in their approach, and this will not happen overnight. However, with no other apparent option, what should the Government of Jamaica do? If they are unable to fill the budget deficit by sourcing cheap loans from other sources, they will have no choice but to call on the IMF for budgetary support. However, the Government of Jamaica maintains that this is not the only option that they are currently exploring, and that they are only seeking to establish this relationship should all other options fail.

While not seeking to enter into a full borrowing arrangement with the IMF, the standby loan facility being sought by Jamaica is certainly not without conditionalities. One only has to look at the recent experiences of Latvia and Ghana, in order to deduce what the future holds for us. The Northern European nation of Latvia, recently entered into an arrangement similar to the one being sought by the Jamaica with the IMF. Their experiences to date are horrifying. Having signed a 27 month stand by agreement, the IMF required Latvia to cut its budget deficit by 7% by the end of 2009. In order to obtain this, the Latvian government has had to cut public sector wages by 15% and pensions by 10%. As expected, this resulted in civil unrest which resulted in the collapse of the Latvian government. However, to make matters worse, the newly installed government was forced to cut public sector wages by an additional 20% and pensions by a further 10% in order to receive the second installment of the loan.

What this signals to me is that despite the purported rhetoric of a new IMF, their actions remain the same. The effects of the conditions attached to the loans they disburse continue to have far reaching destabilizing effects. With the Jamaican government already in a precarious position with public sector workers due to its failure to grant their agreed 7% increase, any venture down this path will no doubt lead to severe social unrest. But as a likely precondition of the proposed arrangement, what does this mean for Jamaica?

The Ghanaian experience with the IMF paints an equally gloomy picture. Currently negotiating a standby agreement with the IMF, Ghana is already feeling the effects of IMF loan preconditions. While still awaiting approval from the IMF board, Ghana has already been required to increase fuel prices by 30%, remove all subsidies, and cut its budget deficit by 37% in one year. As a sub-Saharan African country, one would expect some leniency, however, if Ghana was not spared the traditional stringent requirements of the IMF, one can only speculate as to what the future holds for a country such as Jamaica. On the 20th of July 2009, the Government of Jamaica is expected to address the nation re: our future with the IMF. On this “D-Day”, the citizens of Jamaica will find out our fate, as the government seeks to fix the ballooning hole in the 2009/10 Government of Jamaica Budget.

Stuck in a precarious position it seems they may have no other option but to go to the IMF, may God help us.

Prime Minister David Thompson has spoken out strongly against those Caribbean governments that have commented publicly on his administration’s new immigration policy, saying their reaction was hurting the regional integration process more than the policy itself.

“There seems to be a mad rush now for everybody to say something new. I have announced a domestic immigration policy that is not a matter for other Caribbean prime ministers to comment on,” Thompson said, referring to a six-month amnesty offered to Caribbean Community (Caricom) nationals living in Barbados illegally to regularise their status or face deportation.

Guyana’s President Bharrat Jagdeo has expressed concern about the treatment meted out to his nationals in Barbados, many of whom claim they have been roughed up by immigration authorities and deported.

St Vincent and the Grenadines Prime Minister Ralph Gonsalves is another regional leader to raise concern about Bridgetown’s policy, saying it flies in the face of the spirit of Caricom.

But Thompson said it was a matter that Barbados has a right to pursue.

“It is a sovereign matter which our Parliament and our policy directives base the objectives on,” he said. “Therefore, to have a scenario where everybody is seeking to say something seems to me to be doing more to damage the objectives of Caricom than anything else.”

Despite the Barbados leader’s latest pronouncement, the issue is sure to stir up debate when Thompson sits at the table with his regional counterparts at the Caricom Heads of Government Summit in Guyana from July 2-4.

Last weekend, Opposition leader Mia Mottley called on the government to “correct the unfortunate reputation that Barbados is rapidly developing” as a result of its new immigration policy.

“A government is entitled to implement strong policies. These policies, however, must be applied consistently, fairly and humanely,” she said.

Mottley also expressed fear that “for a country where people’s standard of living depends on people visiting our shores, any reputation of Barbados being inhospitable to visitors will affect our economy”.

“A hostile environment for immigrants must not be an unwelcome environment for Caribbean visitors,” she said.

“The focus must be simply those who have arrived and who have never been documented. Further, when people are asked to leave that they are given the time to pack up their belongings and leave in a manner that does not reduce them to feeling like criminals,” the opposition leader added.

The hypothetical argument, “we must stand unflinchingly by our immigration laws, because an influx of immigrants can degrade the social order” is typical, and relies on assumptions about multicultural society. Yet, in the debate surrounding CARICOM migration, the notion of multiculturalism itself is rarely analyzed for what it is, or what it can be. Therefore, this article will offer a brief focus on ethnic diversity itself, and examine the major worries associated with it. It will be up to the reader to determine whether or not this insight is valuable to contemporary CARICOM issues, but given how frequently multiculturalism appears in the discourse, it seems prudent to attempt a discussion.

Those who wish to prevent ethnic heterogeneity (or at least, curb it) are generally concerned with two major points. The first is that distinct racial, ethnic, or cultural minorities can radically alter political landscapes. One such altered landscape is known as consociationalism, wherein ethnic or racial groups are guaranteed by law to have political representation.

Apart from consociational power-sharing arrangements, ethnically diverse societies can also witness the rise of special interest political parties which split votes and form coalitions, or they may also witness the rise of powerful lobby groups that manipulate government decision makers. Across each of these configurations, the common worry is that minority populations are using their collective influence to direct state resources to their own particular preferences. Each of these resonates unpleasantly with long-time residents of a nation, who may feel that state resources spent in the interest of specific groups are not being spent towards the national good.

The second concern harboured by multiculturalism’s critics is that it may degrade social cohesion. Areas which house multiple racial, ethnic, or cultural groups frequently see “ghettoization” – the involuntary or voluntary marginalization of one group as it establishes a community distinct from the rest of the country, creating strong social cleavages. For example, Chinese residents of an especially well established “Chinatown” may find themselves having no need to learn the country’s official language, as Mandarin employment and social network opportunities are just down the street. The concern is that such segregation makes it difficult for different groups to coexist, leading to social instability, even violence.

Ultimately, both the concern that multiculturalism damages a political landscape and the concern that multiculturalism leads to volatile social conditions boil down to the question of integration. Integration is the willingness of one group to adopt the norms, customs, and lifestyle of a majority group or dominant other. If integration is occurring far and wide, ethnic minorities will not seek the political power necessary to preserve their old way of life. Likewise, if integration is occurring, members of an ethnic group will intersperse naturally with the rest of the population, rather than form racial or ethnic “ghettos.”

In order to fear for the well-being of political or social order when faced with multiculturalism, one must assume that integration, for one reason or another, is unlikely. However, it turns out that integration is not as difficult or unpopular as one might expect.

According to research, more often than not host countries and ethnic majorities have supported integration, and newcomers have proven willing. The groups that refuse to integrate are almost exclusively those which have a history of self governance in the region, or have religious imperatives for isolating themselves. For example, Aboriginals and French Canadians each have a history of self governance in Canada and are the only ethnic groups to grapple politically with the national government. All things being equal, there is no empirical evidence to suggest that immigrants are unwilling to integrate into the culture of their new host country.

Still, what about when all things are not equal? One may remain unconvinced that integration and harmonious coexistence come easily, especially given that many countries suffer from deep ethnic divides. However, experience shows that hostilities between ‘ethnic group A’ and ‘racial group B’ rarely solidify unless they become politicized. This means that only when one group feels that, for example, the other is receiving preference from the government, or one’s own group is disproportionately targeted by law enforcement, do tensions truly grow and perpetuate themselves (Mahmood Mamdani recognizes the importance of this dynamic in his in-depth analysis of the Rwandan genocide).

Once ethnicity or race becomes, or is perceived to have become, hierarchical in its relation to the state, tensions strengthen to the point that they can dissolve social cohesion – but rarely before. It is difficult to find ethnic-based hostility in a country today that is not steeped in this politicization of identity, wherein groups complain of legal injustices, preferential treatment, penal imbalances, and so forth. It is not an inherent result of multiculturalism for cultures to breed hate and mistrust. Such tension emerges when political conditions create them.

So, perhaps multiculturalism itself carries little inherent risk of fragmentation and instability. Integration is a real option if the research is to be believed and cross-ethnic hostility is more the result of identity politicization than it is of different cultures mingling. Admittedly, this analysis is quite abstract and theoretical, while reality is more complicated.

Racism in a country can hinder integration, for example, even if immigrants are perfectly willing to assimilate. Nonetheless, those whose political opinions are influenced by conceptions of multicultural societies would do well to recognize that many problems associated with multicultural societies have little to do with ethnic diversity itself, and more to do with avoidable political pitfalls, such as the lack of government-provided integration assistance to immigrants. In this respect, this article’s brief discussion of multiculturalism may prove useful.

Immigration policy is entangled with the notion of sovereignty. Sovereignty has to do with jurisdiction over the territory and boundaries of a nation and the right to make laws, including the right to determine who is a citizen and who enters the country. But sovereignty is also a concept that continually evolves as our global economy becomes more and more interconnected.

Although there is a growing consensus in the global community to lift border controls for the flow of capital, information, and other services to further globalization, when it comes to immigrants and refugees, the idea of complete sovereignty still reigns. Nevertheless, every nation has been transformed by the implementation of laws and regulations necessary for economic globalization, and we must accept as a possibility that sovereignty itself has been transformed.

The major implication for immigration policy is the impact of these developments on state sovereignty, and it is no longer sufficient for nations to assert a sovereign role when implementing immigration policies. The fact is, considerable innovation in immigration policy is essential given the current transition to a global economy of integration, communication and globalization.

A radical rethinking of citizenship, hard-border policies, and current levels of sovereignty are therefore crucial in order to keep up with the changes of these transnational processes. Only then can the rights of undocumented immigrants be clearly defined and the problems of accountability with undocumented immigration be properly addressed.

Do undocumented immigrants have rights? Under current laws, all residents – citizens and non-citizens alike – have access to international human rights; they are not predicated on nationality. Likewise, a sovereign nation is accountable to all its residents on the basis of international human rights. As a sovereign nation, Barbados has the right to determine who can stay or who must leave. But a lack of transparency and accountability in the implementation of policies invariably leads to a lack of public trust, and the immigration policy recently implemented in Barbados raises many questions.

For starters, why doesn’t the new policy mention anything about non-CARICOM residents such as European and North American expatriates? Surely these undocumented immigrants affect the diminishing resources on the densely populated island just as much as Guyanese, yet the Guyanese population continues to be targeted by some media and law enforcement. Nations cannot have an immigration policy that facilitates the movement and well-being of some people at the expense of others, and it is integral that immigration policies be implemented with transparency.

Apart from this, it is the absence of clarity and certainty to the undocumented immigration issue that also causes fear to develop among immigrants. Undocumented immigration is a grey area because – by it’s very nature – it is undocumented. It is filled with deceptive statistics that promote xenophobia among citizens, and the topic often becomes a scapegoat for other problems affecting a nation.

In Barbados, it is claimed by some that increasing crime rates are a result of the rising numbers of undocumented immigrants. This is an absurd assertion since the Barbadian administration cannot even provide an accurate estimate of the size of the undocumented immigrant population. Indeed, the myth of the ‘criminal immigrant’ has been used as propaganda throughout history to perpetuate intolerance for immigrants and foster support for strict immigration policies.

Just how large is this undocumented population in Barbados anyway? Because undocumented immigrants are held in the shadows of society, largely unorganized and fearful of deportation, it is extremely difficult to measure and prove any statistics related to this group, much less a correlation between undocumented immigration and increasing crime rates.

Additionally, problems of access to employment increase the potential for tension between residents. Although Barbados currently stands as one of the most prosperous nations in the Caribbean, it is not immune to the global economic crisis and unemployment levels in Barbados have likewise been affected. Again, since there is no way to measure this allegation, there is no way we can assume undocumented immigrants are exclusively responsible for taking jobs Barbadians would otherwise hold. Although it is historically noted that undocumented immigrants affect the labor market resulting in cheaper labor, to place full blame on immigrants is to turn a blind eye on pandemic economic recession.

It is direly important that immigration policies be designed and implemented in a humane way that provides equal access to a path towards citizenship. No human being is illegal, and to bestow this term is dehumanizing. Those who migrate illegally are often some of the poorest residents of the community; they do not have the means, resources or time to attain citizenship legally. Some people are running for their lives, some are escaping religious persecution, and others have a family to feed. With no alternative, people risk everything they have in hopes for a better life.

The reality of refugees, displaced persons and other transnational migrants makes the case for trans-border policies and transnational citizenship rights. In an ever-changing world, our ideas of citizenship must follow suit to encompass the international human rights we are entitled to assert.

Given the current mobility of people, capital, commodities, ideas, and symbols, the enjoyment of civil and social rights should also be made possible for all residents. Because regardless of any implemented immigration policy, individuals will continue to migrate by any means necessary, legally or illegally.

Some time back I wrote about the inability of many young people to read. The students of the University of Guyana became angry to the point that they actually challenged me to prove to them that they really could not read. There were others who thought that I was unfair.

So one day I conducted a simple test in the Prime News studios. I gave a few of them a newspaper to read. Then I asked them to paraphrase what they had read. I asked another set to simply read a few passages for the purpose of recording.I still remember this graduate student breaking down in tears after trying a few times to read a simple paragraph.

Then on Thursday at a meeting at Kaieteur News, I learnt that many of the reporters, including those who consider themselves senior reporters, do not read the newspapers at all. They could not tell me what was there in some of the pages. There were the few who perused the pages to see if their story was carried.
I suppose that reading is a dying custom. The other day I happened to be talking with some welfare people and the conversation gradually veered to the extent of illiteracy in the society.

I do not think that I would be exaggerating if I conclude that 40 per cent of many young men walking the streets cannot read or write.

I know for a fact that many of the young criminals cannot read, and by young, I mean men between the ages of 16 and 35. As a young man, the people who could not read were the old people who had grown up in this country when there was no compulsory education, when women were groomed to be housewives and therefore did not need an education although I wondered how they would count the money their spouses gave them.

I remember writing that there is no greater joy than ploughing through the pages of a book and forming the mental images. I now wonder how does an individual feel when he sees a newspaper and cannot decipher what is on the pages. The words, perhaps, look like decorated lines.

I cannot but help recall the two criminals who went to a home to help themselves to whatever they could. They encountered a sign at the gate that read, ‘Beware—the dogs bite’. One turned to the other and asked what does the sign say to which he got the reply that the homeowner was indicating that he was not at home and people could leave what they have at the gate.

They jumped the gate and came face to face with three sizeable dogs. And the animals were not smiling. There was the expected confrontation and the two men eventually managed to scale the fence and into another yard where there were “more flingings” with some other dogs. I saw the two bleeding men limping and hurrying along the road as I was heading home and concluded that they were the victims of some robbery or at worse, an attack from some people. One of them was crying. They were hard put to explain their injuries to the police who happened by a short while later.

In court their lawyer made an interesting point. He argued that people with vicious dogs should put up a sign so that innocent people may be warned. He argued that his clients were innocent and that the homeowner had no sign.

These two men actually said that there was no warning sign. The photographs tendered proved otherwise but as if for fun, the magistrate asked them to read the sign. And again one said that it was a notice informing people that the homeowner was not at home.

The lawyer then tried “a thing”. He said that the homeowner should have placed a picture of a dog on the sign to accommodate those who cannot read.

I still remember the days when, as a young man at La Jalousie, I had to read letters for the recipients. It was a community effort, actually, because on Saturdays I had to read three of four letters to a group of people. Today, I would have to do the same to young people. What is worse is that these are the people who cannot qualify for certain jobs but they want money so they turn to crime.

I posit that once this trend continues, the society would not be safe because being unable to reason, these young men are going to invade wherever they think they should. Life would be pretty uncomfortable. These are the very people who give a statement and when asked to read it back to ensure that it is accurate, cannot. Their lawyers then claim that the statement was given under duress.

It is this illiteracy that fosters so many repeat criminal offenders like the chain snatchers and the carjackers. And the Education Ministry is not doing much because it apparently does not know where to start.

Imagine a woman getting a result from a medical examination and not knowing what that result is.

I travel and young people sitting next to me on an aircraft would ask me to fill their Customs declaration forms. Immigration officers have to do the same for them. The education system has collapsed and this collapse was not long in the making.