Over the last couple years BU has articulated, we hope dispassionately, on the issue of the open immigration policy which was practiced by the previous government. At no time have we supported xenophobic behaviour or bigotry in the ensuing discourse. We have simply held a position that while Barbados should be committed to its obligations under the Treaty of Chaguaramus, it does not mean that our borders should be assaulted by all and sundry seeking the proverbial streets lined with gold at the expense of the vision which Barbadians have held-up for itself through the years. BU readers can do a search using the keyword ‘immigration’ to access the many blogs posted on this subject.
The conspiracy which has emerged across the region to spin a false position in response to Prime Minister David Thompson’s Ministerial Statement after he announced an amnesty for CARICOM nationals, has been blatant and symptomatic of a political and social immaturity.
Any interested observer of regional affairs would conclude that the issue of immigration is a topical one. Since the announcement by Thompson of the amnesty the issue has become accentuated. In the Advocate Newspaper of 14 June 2009 a Mr. Lindsay Holder was as clear as anyone can be in elucidating on the immigration issue which Barbados and the region is currently battling, he did so without the use of jargon, fuzzy logic, ideological or jingoistic biases. We highly commend the Advocate Newspaper for giving voice to this important issue which is being manipulated by politicians, academics, Fourth Estate and prominent and other influential persons in Barbados and across the region.
As the popular saying goes we will probably not agree with the many persons who submit articles to be published on BU, but we will always defend their right to be heard. In recent days BU in this vain would have published two submissions by George Braithwaite, a PhD Candidate in International Politics researching the topic of immigration in the region.
In the Sunday Sun of 14 June 2009 the headline Bad Rep, the Opposition Leader of Barbados Mia Mottley was highly critical of the Barbados government’s new immigration policy. She suggested that Barbados is likely to suffer a backlash from some Caricom members as a result. The point which continues to elude Mottley is the fact that managing our borders is a matter of sovereignty and MUST not be dictated by those who themselves have done a muck-up job of managing their own countries.
Increasingly in recent weeks one of the characteristics which defines an American has been been flickering in the minds of the BU household. The best definition we could find of what it means to be an American is an unswerving support and devotion to our flag, our elected officials, our men and women in uniform. For others, patriotism means criticizing politicians when they take America in the wrong direction, protesting in the streets—sometimes even burning the flag. Patriotism also has complex ties to citizenship, race, and nationalism, as well as to the ways in which we remember our wars and the people who fought in them – University of Chicago.
Barbados for all that it has accomplished, and which has led to it being considered the island of opportunity in the region, has been allowing slowly but surely, a conspiracy by some to take root to undermine the Bajan success. The issue which Barbados faces is not honouring its obligations under the Treaty of Chaguaramus, but one of ensuring that it effectively manages the country in the way that it has successfully done in a post-independence era. Many of the countries in the region who are crying foul of the new immigration policy i.e. Guyana and St. Vincent would do well to use Barbados as a model to their own revival of political and economic fortunes.
The two stakeholders in Barbados we are most disappointed are the Opposition Barbados Labour Party and the Fourth Estate. In the face of a regional conspiracy to undermine the reputation and goodwill of Barbados which was built under the astute management by successive governments, we have a situation now where for political expediency the government in waiting is safeguarding it legacy by confusing the illegal immigration problem faced by Barbados by masking its position in the known challenges of implementing a political and economic union. In another place BU used the analogy that if CARICOM/CSME were a regional company its profitability would hinge on an efficient implementation of a vertical integration strategy. CARICOM conversely has not done enough to strengthen and harmonize key institutions and procedures.
The Fourth Estate in Barbados has aided and abetted the vulnerable position which Barbados now finds itself by being unpatriotic in the positions is has taken, the Nation Newspapers and Voice of Barbados the main culprits. The media in Barbados has been generous in giving a voice to an anti-government sentiment concerning the immigration issue. The populist view in Barbados is a commonsense view that the previous government’s position of allowing unskilled people whether from Guyana, Jamaica and elsewhere is untenable. Even the other ethnic groups from Europe and China have come under the microscope. Talk show host Dennis Johnson always uses the example that all are welcome to Barbados but it must be done under agreed terms. In other words if you are invited to someone’s home one still needs to knock on the door and remain seated in the sitting room before being invited to the bedroom. After all it is our home and respect and common courtesies are due!
The fact that our Fourth Estate in Barbados gives a generous voice to Rickey Singh, who continues to bite the hand which has fed him for so many years, and not give EQUAL voice to other views which represent ordinary Barbadians is disgusting. Bare in mind that Singh has not used his pen to expose the atrocities currently at play in Guyana.
The fact that the Fourth Estate ignores the hatchet job being done on the good reputation of Barbados by Singh, Saunders et al who are syndicated columnists and remain passive to respond is an indictment on their duty to accurately report the views of ordinary Barbadians who are its supporters.
The fact that the Guyanese media has been freely publishing articles which are unfairly critical of Barbados’ immigration policy with no response from the Barbados media except to cherry pick those opinions which support narrow political views is hypocrisy of a high level.
The fact that the media in Barbados continues to blackout reporting on the political and racial tensions in Guyana which have spurred an exodus of Guyanese to swarm the smaller Caribbean nations to the North is journalistic dishonesty.
The fact that the media has ignored the commonsense concern of ordinary Barbadians that learned behaviours derived in a Guyanese environment rifted with racial conflict may pose issues to the stable host population of Barbados is ignorant.
The fact that the Fourth Estate and the Opposition Party of Barbados led by Mia Mottley sit passively and allow Jagdeo to cherry pick the issue of immigration to undermine the earned good reputation of Barbados is unpatriotic. The known political and racial conflict in Guyana and the accommodation of unsavoury people like Roger Khan et al which have been left silent represent a betrayal of Barbados and a usurping of their core responsibilities.
The Chairmanship of CARICOM will be passed to Jagdeo in July, he will without a doubt use tit o promote his narrow interest. It maybe the last straw which will break the back and or setback the regional initiative of CARICOM and the CSME.
















497 responses so far ↓
Anonymous // June 14, 2009 at 8:19 PM
I am awaiting david ellis or VOB’s response to this article and their handling or rather mishandling of the illegal immigration discussion especially as it relates to any negative discussion of guyanese criminal and social habits.
We know they are reading this post,yet they still engage in blacking out any discussion on racial discrimination and racial conflict between indians and africans in Guyana or else where.
Long may BU exist.
Jay // June 14, 2009 at 8:26 PM
Yes,Mr. Holder is definitely what I would consider an “Academic” on this illegal immigration,not because his facts are more in line with my own but because he bases the current information given based on FACTS not hyperbole.
The mixing of the current CSME with illegal immigration is a distinction that MUST be made in order for this debate to move forward.I also believe we as Bajans need other Caricom members states to speak up about this immigration issue especially,Antigua & St. Kitts on the Caricom level since they are also facing the same issues which Barbados is facing.
Bush Tea // June 14, 2009 at 8:31 PM
@David
Excellent article except that ‘our fourth estate in Barbados’ is no longer really ours (owned by us).
This may explain why they seem to be anti-Barbados.
I have no idea what could explain the BLP’s anti Barbados stance however…..
Anonymous // June 14, 2009 at 9:05 PM
Has any official of the Government of Barbados ever said how many illegal immigrants are estimated to be in Barbados?
The Scout // June 14, 2009 at 10:57 PM
Anonymous
YES, Sen Maxine McClean had stated that there are about 60,000 to 70,000 illegal persons in Barbados. I think that is the figure she gave.
The Scout // June 14, 2009 at 11:11 PM
The BLP continues to not only disappoint me but anger me. It seems Mia Mottley is so keen to become P.M and to change the whole culture of this country, that she will sell patriotic bajans to the highest or any bidder. This woman has gone completely off her rocker. When these illegals arrived at the air/seaport, they declared how much time they plaaned on spending in the country.They knew then that they didn’t plan on returning to their country. This means they made a false declaration to the Barbados Government. My government was generous enough to offer an amnesty to some of them. Am I to believe that a party who wants to lead this country at some stage, is saying that the present government is wrong for asking those illegal persons to leave? This is tantamount to treason and in other countries will be punishable. On the other hand, I think Mia is trying to whip up enough controversy to start some civil unrest in the country and make it almost ungovernable for the DLP. My question to Mia & Co how low will you go to TRY to regain POWER in this country? All I would say to you is, be careful of what you are fighting so hard for?
Ready-Done // June 15, 2009 at 5:23 AM
The said article in the advocate everyone discussing the topic should read. something like that would never make it in the Nation newspaper.
Which leads me to wonder, what other topics the nation newspaper is show one-sided views on?
David // June 15, 2009 at 5:56 AM
The point which is worth exploring is the fact that Jagdeo has essentially called PM Thompson a liar by expressing scepticism at the number of illegals in Barbados. This should not be allowed to pass by Barbados. It is our reputation and credibility.
It explains also why Faria is reported as making all kinds of unsubstantiated statements in the Guyana media.
Ready-Done // June 15, 2009 at 6:12 AM
BUt wait Thomson ent put nun of these people in them place yet?
What he waiting pun?
I hope he sure.
Anonymous // June 15, 2009 at 6:16 AM
So true Ready Done.
Roxanne Gibbs who is mia’s “friend’ does her bidding and the bidding of the BLP without any sense of shame.
In addition roxanne gibbs an ungrateful guyanese who has benefitted soooooooo much from her sojourn here is determined to defend the guyanese and to portray barbados in a negative light.
Someone said that roxanne gibbs has ordered that no headline on crime should read ‘GUYANESE CHARGED FOR …….
Instead the headline will say ‘NON NATIONAL CHARGED’ and inside the article you will then find out it is a guyanese.
Think also about the one sided stories carried in the nation – never the ones in the starbrok news which says the illegal guynese say they are not going back to guyana,instead we hear how they all preparing to return,or how badly they are being treated by immigration officers,or how much guyanese has built up barbados.
I suppose this is suppose to take the immigration officers off-guard since there will be no need for raids because the guyanese going home right?
Why I have asked did Mia’ statement make front page news?
Was anything in that statement new,or breaking news?
No,but it was intentionally done to get maximun coverage here and abroad.
That is how these guyanese operate.
Have you heard any of those guyanese who has been in Barbados for a long time and benefitted from being in barbados coming out like prof. Eudene Barriteau and defending the goodness and geneorisity of barbados?
Not for hell.
They take and take from you and then curse you.
David // June 15, 2009 at 6:40 AM
Issues such as immigration MPs should not be allowed to hide behind collective responsibility on either side. What is the position of each MP in parliament?
The same is true about our journalists. Should we assume that all the journalists at the Nation and VOB think as one on the issue of immigration?
We have placed Hoyte’s picture on this blog because we are hoping that he still has influence and his position is not ceremonial.
sylvan // June 15, 2009 at 7:17 AM
Mia Mottley’s unpatriotic behaviour must be condemned in the strongest terms by every patriotic Barbadian. Her reckless and irresponsible bashing of the Barbados Government (just because it is the DLP) for ridding our country of visitors who have broken the law by overstaying and working, tarnishes the BLP which has always been ready to sell out Barbados for 30 pieces of silver . Stand firm, Bajans!
AK-47 // June 15, 2009 at 7:33 AM
Everybody knows this ‘immigration issue’ is essentially a fork headed matter. 1. It’s a Government to Government feud. 2. It’s a racial thing.
Well – this is the world we live in. What goes around, comes around. Stay tuned.
The Scout // June 15, 2009 at 7:52 AM
I would like the BLP, Owen and Mia especially, to come clean and let the nation of Barbados know exactly what pack they had made with Guyana, St. Vincent, Starcom Network and others about their right of entry into Barbados. I have read the Revised Treaty of Chagaramus and nowhere in that treaty does it state that Barbados must adopt an open door policy to anyone from Caricom/CSME to repatriate to this country unconditionally.
Anonymous // June 15, 2009 at 7:53 AM
David
Read today’s adocate for the conclusion of lindsay holder’s piece on immigration.
Wishing In Vain // June 15, 2009 at 7:55 AM
With approx 50,000 undocumented workers plying their trade in Barbados putting heavy demands on ALL of our resources Hospital, Courts, Polyclincs, Policing, Roads and Water resources and the list goes on, why in heavens name should we as a people throw open our doors to be overrun with illegals?
This may have been good for Owing as this was the method he used to secure cheap labour for work done at his home but does not work for the masses of Barbadians.
Barbados MUST control who comes and who stays on this island, simple and plain, no longer can we have Guyanese using and making Barbados their destination of choice and doing so without the proper legal procedure being followed as opposed to using persons such as fraudulent Attorneys such as one LeGay who it appears that every Guyanese or should I say every illegal turns to for resolve to their immigration problem, when persons such as LeGay are not used, they turned as was the case with a Mr Boolani he turned to and PAID Kerrie Simmons a tidy sum of money to secure a status for him, sadly for the person Mr Simmons never had the time or the will power to make good of his promise to render a service for the money paid as he was kicked out of office very shortly thereafter.
The point of note here is that the BLP would do nothing to oppose the process of the movement of Guyanese to our shores because person such as Kerrie Simmons were very closely entwined in these illegal actions.
One day we will all better understand the relationships of persons like LeGay, Simmons and others to the Guyanese and person in high office in Immigration.
The Scout // June 15, 2009 at 8:24 AM
I thank God everyday for opening the eyes of bajans to the injustice the BLP was gradually putting them under. Had that party not lost the government, one day many of us would wake up and see illegals squatting on our properties and there would be nothing we could do about it, other than take matters in our own hands. I pinch myself daily to find out if I’m dreaming about the behaviour of “so-called” responsible people. It is time we bajans put Mia & Co in her place and let her know she does not own this country and if she looking for popularity in the region, then she shouyld migrate either to Guyana or St. Vincent ILLEGALLY.
I warned bajans many months ago that when these indo-guyanese especially increase in significant numbers, they are going to cause havoc in this country. Many people laughed me to scorn; the chickens have come home to roost, this is just the preface, we haven’t even started chapter one yet.
Ruel Daniels // June 15, 2009 at 8:37 AM
David
The point which is worth exploring is the fact that Jagdeo has essentially called PM Thompson a liar by expressing scepticism at the number of illegals in Barbados. This should not be allowed to pass by Barbados. It is our reputation and credibility.
It explains also why Faria is reported as making all kinds of unsubstantiated statements in the Guyana media
*************************************
David you guys will learn how basically common Jagdeo and others in the PPP are. They grew up and were nutured in environments where respect for black people was non existent. Making reference that implied that a Caribbean collegue is a liar is par for the course with these people, who are incapable of according the respect of Office to those they consider ethnically inferior to them. For Jagdeo and Faria, the PM of Barbados is a Dalit regardless of his complexion, and they are Brahmins. That is how these particular people,
meaning some of those in leadership positions in the PPP, reason.
Whenever you see a poster identify themselves as AK47, know that is a PPP supporter sending a subliminal message to blacks. The ex Minister of Home Affairs of Guyana, Ronald Gajraj, and drug Baron Roger Khan, coordinated the larceny of AK47s from the army, which they turned around and blamed on black soldiers. They then assigned Indians to intelligence sections in the Police and Army to torture blacks they accused of stealing these weapons. George Bacchus, the whistle blower on the Phantoms activities, stated in his affidavit that he saw AK47 rifles in the office of Gajraj when he visited there. These same weapons were used to assassinate black activist Ronald Waddell and many of the young black men gunned down by Phantoms.
Many Indian supporters of the PPP assume that internet handle as a means of displaying the arrogance they have from being part of ethnic domination in Guyana.
The time is rapidly approaching when the covers over the gross war crimes and human rights abuses of the PPP will be exposed on the International scene. Mark Benschop, has already taken the names of many of the 300 or so murdered black men to Washington and handed them over to diplomats and political leaders.
The Scout // June 15, 2009 at 8:57 AM
I think the best thing that could happen, is the desolving of the CARICOM/ CSME. There is no trust among the leaders and is is a recipe for disaster. When a whole lots of leaders could be so afraid of confronting leaders like Jagdeo and Gonsalves, eventually, when these persons are exposed, the whole Caribbean will be painted with the same brush. These two guys could not have gotten away with their nonsense in the days of Errol Barrow or even Tom Adams. I’m glad that P.M. David Thompson is bold enough to call a spade a spade.
y. paris // June 15, 2009 at 9:53 AM
Barbadians stand firm behind PM Thompson and this new immigration policy and deport all illegal aliens from barbados. Send the lazy guyanese back to backward, undeveloped guyana immediately. Remind them that bajans built barbados without their help. In barbados, bajans come first in the country which they built and have a duty to preserve BARBADOS for future generations of bajans.
Negroman // June 15, 2009 at 10:20 AM
I agreed with Scout,Mia Mottley is hellbent on allowing social unrest in Barbados to occur so as to give herself a chance to become the Prime Minister of Barbados.Her reckless statements are nauseating to say the least.
After reading her comments in the Sunday Sun newspaper I can only say that lady is a political lunatic & jackass.
Mia Mottley how can our new immigration policy have a negative impact on our tourism? Please explain.
Mia Mottley how is Barbados gaining a negative image internationally by our new immigration policy?Please explain.
Bharat Jagdeo talked about protecting and speaking up for the rights of Guyanese in Barbados & elsewhere.Bharat Jagdeo how about speaking up for the rights of Black Guyanese in Guyana who are sysetmatically murdered,are denied opportunities for employment and are are at the receiving end of a vicious racist attack from the Indo-Guyanese who are in control of that country.How about speaking up for the rights of those murdered Black Guyanese men & boys including Ronald Waddell who were killed by the phantom gang financed & supported by Roger Khan with support from the PPP government.
Bharat Jagdeo we are sick & tired of you,Norman Faria & Ricky Singh.The 3 of you should highlight the human right abuses of Black Guyanese in Guyana and stop worrying about the immigration policy of Barbados.
Prime Minister David Thompson I would be very disappointed in you as a leader if you agree to have a meeting with Norman Faria to discuss the new immigration policy and any concerns he might have.Norman Faria wants to stir up strife in Barbados & the region.He is posting a whole set of lies and misinformation about Barbados in his contributions to the Chronicle Newspaper,Starbroek News & other Guyanese newspapers.I believe an investigation should be carry out on the allegations of Norman Faria that Guyanese are being taken off buses,work sites and are ill-treated.If those allegation are untrue charges should be brought against Norman Faria and if it is possible his citizenship should be revoke and he should be sent packing out of Barbados.Decisive action must be taken against musty Norman Faria.Enough is enough.
Anonymous // June 15, 2009 at 10:27 AM
You should hear peter wickham on 100.7 F.M. this morning getting on pissy.
Of course he is joined by drunken george brathwaite whose agenda on immigration should be exposed because he is married to one of the said wufless guyanese.
Bunch of misfits,the lot of them.
Anonymous // June 15, 2009 at 10:38 AM
I’m really disappointed that my tax payer’s dollars are funding a salary for Peter Wickham to browbeat callers, stupse at them and be rude and dismissive towards then when he doesn’t agree with their views. This has nothing to do with WHAT views Peter espouses… it’s simply HOW he does it. So apparently that’s that’s standard practic at CBC. Just check how The Admiral treats callers and guests on his Crop Over show … and the taxpayer foots the bill. Public service broadcasting at its very worst from people who think they are indispensible and beyond reproach. I suupose I don’t really expect better from Admiral, but Peter should know how to behave. Again, it’s not about their views… it’s about how they behave. Disgusting really!
Anonymous // June 15, 2009 at 10:49 AM
You never know anon, probably PW has a guyanese MAN! LOL
All George does is watch his wife on the computer he doesn’t know where she is! Not even SHE wants him! George my advice to you is that Home bells should ring first! You see your wife doesn’t want you ……You better check for a bajan woman!
PickUhNoise // June 15, 2009 at 10:55 AM
Anonymous // June 15, 2009 at 10:27 am
You should hear peter wickham on 100.7 F.M. this morning getting on pissy.
Of course he is joined by drunken george brathwaite whose agenda on immigration should be exposed because he is married to one of the said wufless guyanese.
Bunch of misfits,the lot of them.
===========================
Do people still listen to Peter? I have not heard anything of him since his little visit to and trashing he received on BU. Maybe people are not so interested in the Talkprogrammes anymore.
I just got through listening to a clearly exasperated George C Brathwaite complicated responses to simple questions, on a Jamiacan Radio program. I got the sense that the Jamiacan interviewers posing the questions were bemused by his meandering and bewildering responses. It was annoying to say the lease. The audio file can be found at http://www.normangirvan.info
islander // June 15, 2009 at 10:59 AM
now that comment was out of place ! i love this site, until it degenerates into that type of thing…
well this issue hits home to me, I am engaged to a non national, very sweet lady and i intend to marry her by hook or crook ! however i cant get a marriage licence because she over stayed, thru ignorance of the law on both of our parts. are u telling me i shud feel good if one day she is grabbed and kicked out of the island? there must be a middle ground, immigration wont even consider it ! there cant be a blanket policy, there will be dislocation of family units and other issues to deal with because of this thing, i am telling you are one of those a-political voices, deal with this issue as a social one, in the demographic of society..LEAVE OUT DE DAMN POLITICS !
Adrian Hinds // June 15, 2009 at 11:06 AM
Has there been any attempt on either call in programme to respond to Linsay Holders two historical and contextual articles, framing the current immigration debate?
Sorry the “PickUhNoise” label is me. I have been reduce to disguising in order to post on BFP. LOL!
btw living in Barbados is today’s most popular bajan blog followed by BU both with over 3 links. BFP is at number seven out of nine bajan sites with just under 4 thousand links. ha ha ha
What do the numbers mean?
The numbers reflect the number of web pages that point to the selected site.
For example, the number 18.900 in the AltaVista column means that AltaVista has at least 18.900 web pages in the index that link to the selected web site.
Where do the numbers come from?
Link Popularity Check returns the numbers it gets from the search engines. Double click on a number to view the pages that are returned by that search engine.
The “Total” column is a combination of all columns. Search engines often index the same web pages so the real total number of web pages that link to a site might be lower.
Adrian Hinds // June 15, 2009 at 11:07 AM
that should have been BU and LIB has over 3 MILLION links.
Anonymous // June 15, 2009 at 11:15 AM
Peter has a trini man not a guyanese man.
Anonymous // June 15, 2009 at 11:19 AM
Barbados Underground is far more popular than Living in Barbados.
Ask any bajan about bajan blogs and only 2 names come up.BU and BFP.
Adrian Hinds // June 15, 2009 at 11:22 AM
Wuh is all this talk about Peter having a man? What is he suppose to have?
Where are the Mia Mottley supporters?
Where are the Mia Mottley-The-BLP-Partyleader supporters?
Where are the Mia Mottley-for-PrimeMinister supporters
Certainly not to be found in any significant numbers amonst the responses to her comments as contained in a recent Nationnews article.
http://www.nationnews.com/news/local/IMMIGRATION-STORY-FRONT-PAGE-LEAD
Adrian Hinds // June 15, 2009 at 11:38 AM
Anonymous // June 15, 2009 at 11:19 am
Barbados Underground is far more popular than Living in Barbados.
Ask any bajan about bajan blogs and only 2 names come up.BU and BFP.
————————————————
Anon I am not disputing that. I run daily popularity link checks against an average of 10 bajan forums/blogs, so I can corroborate your comments with facts. However from time to time a site has an article that generates more interest and more links to their site than is usual. Today is such a day for LIB. Consistently the two Leading Newspapers gets the most web links to their site and Barbados Forum consistently maintains a third/fourth. BFP outside of their references to Rihanna or BU maintains a 6th or 7th place position on average.
David // June 15, 2009 at 11:56 AM
Can we lift the debate please and leave people’s personal life out of the thing?
Adrian Hinds // June 15, 2009 at 11:57 AM
islander // June 15, 2009 at 10:59 am
now that comment was out of place ! i love this site, until it degenerates into that type of thing…
well this issue hits home to me, I am engaged to a non national, very sweet lady and i intend to marry her by hook or crook ! however i cant get a marriage licence because she over stayed, thru ignorance of the law on both of our parts. are u telling me i shud feel good if one day she is grabbed and kicked out of the island? there must be a middle ground, immigration wont even consider it ! there cant be a blanket policy, there will be dislocation of family units and other issues to deal with because of this thing, i am telling you are one of those a-political voices, deal with this issue as a social one, in the demographic of society..LEAVE OUT DE DAMN POLITICS !
————————————————–
First and very last, Politics is everything and will not change simply because you decided not be engaged. I would argue that had you chosen to be engage in the political decisions around you, you have might have been moved to make sure that your fiance’s immigrant status was within the requirements of the law. Rather than ask the emotional questions about your feelings, you should be reminded that ignorance of the Law, has never been an excuse.
Using the Law and understanding the politics of a society to ones benefit.
When i became a U.S.A permanent resident it immediately change the rules with which the US immigration department would deal with my wife. When i filed for her to take up permanent residentcy, they immediately suspended her privilage to travel to the US on a visitor’s visa. The rationale was very clear to me. If you are allowed to travel on a visitor’s visa while pending a change in status to permanent resident, it is likely that you would overstay you visitors visa while in state thereby making you an out of status immigrant in other words an illegal immigrant. That is very clear to me (law) and the implications of living illegally in the US is also (politics).
I understood the immigration policy of Canada towards Barbadians, and given the close proximity of my US location to the nearest major Canadian city, we use Canadian liberal immigration laws and practice to bring her closer, where we waited out the wait period for issuance of her permanent visa. No lawyers involved, just my willinness to help myself and my ability to understand and work within the process, laws and POLITICS of the societies mentioned. I continue to be amazed by those who ignore and would implore other to “LEAVE THE POLITICS OUT” while politics and political decisions where laws, policies, and regulations that effect our lives begins their life journey. Utterly amazed.
.
Adrian Hinds // June 15, 2009 at 12:13 PM
I am reading Linsay Holder’s article for the fourth time. It makes me so proud to be a Barbadian when i read his two articles. His is an excellent use of pragmatism. He appealed to his sense of right and wrong, and in the face of organized criticism base on inconsistencies, untruths, and a refusal to look at our histories, he compiled the facts to back up his opinions and laid their arguments bare. I await their responses to his articles, where the rules of the debate has been set. They must counter his facts with facts if they can.
Is Ricky Singh for planned migration? how do we get their without regularizing the status of illegal immigrants? Is David Thompson’s words and positions comprapable to the words of Jeddi Jagan, and the positions of Jamaica and Trinidad on the very same issues at an earlier time? How do we reconcile the views of Indo trini and Guyanese who view caribbean unity as a dilution of their identity? How can we think of coming to together with persons who have a very different idea? Oh how i await their responses.
Mash up &buy back // June 15, 2009 at 12:54 PM
Reading the starbroek newspaper today,there is an article about a district called south wakenaam in guyana where the people are collecting drinking water out of a drain.
There is a picture of it.
The people also have no eletricity,have to beg others for water,and children 9,11, and 14 years old cannot go to school because of poverty and instead have to work on farms.
Now where is ricky singh,and norman faria and ronald saunders and basdeo jagdeo when you need them..
Talk to that people.
Ruel Daniels // June 15, 2009 at 1:42 PM
New immigration policy giving Barbados bad name – Mottley
(Barbados Nation)
Opposition Leader Mia Mottley has warned Government that its new immigration policy is already beginning to give Barbados a bad reputation in the region and could possibly affect the economy.
“A government is entitled to implement strong policies. These policies, however, must be applied consistently, fairly and humanely,” she said in a statement on Saturday. “Moreover, 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,” Mottley added.
The Opposition Leader’s comments came on the heels of Guyana’s President Bharrat Jagdeo’s statement over the weekend in which he took exception to the treatment of Guyanese in Barbados as reported to him by Guyana’s Honorary Consul Norman Faria.
The Guyanese leader said he had spoken to Prime Minister David Thompson on the issue and noted that his administration would do all it could to assist Guyanese who might be deported with resettling in their homeland.
To this end, Foreign Minister Carolyn Rodrigues will be in Barbados for a regional meeting and while here she will meet Guyana nationals, some of whom might be affected by Government’s six-month amnesty for undocumented immigrants.
Jagdeo said his government would not stand by and see Guyanese treated unfairly anywhere without speaking up for them. He said the situation would be discussed at the regional Heads of Government meeting.
‘Must be corrected’
Mottley said it was critical for Barbados to “correct the unfortunate reputation which Barbados is rapidly developing in recent weeks”.
“A hostile environment for immigrants must not be an unwelcome environment for Caribbean visitors. The focus must be simply who have arrived and who have never been documented . . . .
“Further, that 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,” she said.
According to Jagdeo, there were reported instances of Guyanese allegedly having their homes raided at night and also being taken off buses and deported.
“Prime Minister Thompson said to me that he didn’t know of any such case, and that is not the intention of his Government, and that he is willing to meet with our honorary consul to discuss any case and to investigate any such case,” Jagdeo said.
Jagdeo noted that some of the arguments put forward about immigrants putting pressure on the social security of the countries in which they resided were not really valid.
On this, Mottley said Thompson as lead Prime Minister for the Caribbean Single Market and Economy must settle the contingent rights as a matter of urgency.
“It is the uncertainty as to what social services persons will be entitled to receive when they move to live in another country that has driven many of the legitimate concerns expressed by Barbadians and others in the region,” she added.
*************************************
How come Motley do not take the same position with respect to how Guyanese of African Descent are being treated in Guyana. This is why throughout history Black people are always discriminated against with impunity. The black leaders who appear in this world nowadays are a bunch of unlce toms who shuffle and maintain silence when their own kind are mistreated by others, then create a pappy show whenever assertive black leaders take positons that leaders of every other ethnic group does.
Guyana has endless land, how many Hatians have Jagdeo allowed to immigrate into Guyana. The PPP govenment allow Indians from India to come into Guyana at will, stay as long as they like, but deport any black person they find living in Guyana illegally. Boy, Willy Lynch really did a good job on us.
Adrian Hinds // June 15, 2009 at 1:57 PM
Mia Mottley is a friend of Guyana’s Government. In the Caribbean friends are not suppose to say anything negative to each other.
David // June 15, 2009 at 2:08 PM
We want to continue the use of the company analogy. If the government of Barbados was a company and its reputation was being battered the way it is over the immigration matter, how should it respond?
Any good company would launch a massive PR/communications blitz to get its message out.
Mash up &buy back // June 15, 2009 at 2:34 PM
David
So how are you suggesting this PR campaign by the government should be done?
The danger is that if the government of barbados or its agents go out there and try to explain its position it would come across as being defensive, weak and apologetic.
Have you seen the great US of A sending persons out to defend its immigration policies?
It’s a case of you either like it or lump it.
I have to wonder why is there such great fear and hysteria about what Barbados is doing.
David do you think there is something that all of us are missing which is creating this fear?
Read the comments of jamaican trade minister Sabuda.
Norman girvan,sabuda,gonsalves,even manning gave a jab at barbados – what,I am asking – is causing all of this alarm?
I listened to peter simmons on Brasstacks today being so deceitful.He used the example posted by a blogger here on BU.
He made no mention of the name of the blog but instead selectively quoted the 20 persons in greenwich village who were rounded up and deported – without saying that they were illegal non nationals engaing in criminal activities and found with stolen items.
But he is on the air trying to provoke sympathy from the bajan audience and the immigration officers and government officials who he obviously believe must be listening.
Another BLP anti-bajan bleeding heart.
Love the guyanese more than their own bajans,but then again it is said that peter simmons grand mother was a guyanese indian,and his brother robin married (of convenience) a guyanese indian woman years ago which enabled her to get bajan citizenship.
So they know what they are about.
Even Mia’s friend who allegedly got injured is alleged to be a guyanese.
Everyone is selfishly looking after their own interests without thinking about what the implications of their actions will be on Barbados.
Once they can get their cheap maid,or the whore or homsexual partner or cheap labourer then all is right in their world to hell with barbaod and managed migration.
David // June 15, 2009 at 2:41 PM
The PR must be done in a Caricom context. USA is not a good example because it is seen as operating in its own weight class.
Negroman // June 15, 2009 at 3:16 PM
I agreed with Mash Up & Buy Back
Having a public relations campaign to explain the government immigration policy is not desirable in this context.This government is answerable only to the people of Barbados and no one else.We the people of Barbados were asking for clampdown on the number of illegals residing in Barbados and a comprehensive new immigration policy.This government has delivered on this issue to a certain extent and I am sure that a vast majority of Barbadians are happy with the new immigration policy outlined by this administration.
I hope David Thompson & his administration do not respond to the nonsense emanating from the mouths of the clowns such as Mia Mottley,Peter Wickham,Norman Faria ,George Brathwaite and the rest.I want this administration to report to the people of Barbados periodically on the progress of the new immigration policy.I want the government to let us know how many non-nationals were deported,how many got their status regularized and all the other issues with this new immigration policy.
I see no reason for this government to launch any public relations programme Mash Up & Buy Back is correct it will come over as a defensive tactic & it will gave the impression that the government is not receiving the support of the populace.
The new immigration policy is in place please enforce it to the fullest.Rid this country of all illegals especially the Indo-Guyanese misfits.
Mash up &buy back // June 15, 2009 at 3:28 PM
David
Your reply does not explain the ‘HOW’.
Are you saying talk to all the caribbean leaders, or let edwin carrington and the caricom secratariat be involved,talk to the caribbean people,what are you saying?
J // June 15, 2009 at 3:31 PM
Scout wrote “Am I to believe that a party who wants to lead this country at some stage, is saying that the present government is wrong for asking those illegal persons to leave? This is tantamount to treason and in other countries will be punishable”
Dear Scout:
Please provide the BU family with a list of democratic countries where disagreement with the party in power is treason and punishable?
J // June 15, 2009 at 3:36 PM
The Nation is not an academic journal (and neither is the Advocate)
If Lindsay Holder wants to APPEAL to daily newspaper readers he has to learn to make his articles SHORT and SWEET.
Most newspaper readers did NOT graduate from university and are not interested in reading 4-6 page academic discourses. Lindsay should cut the coat to suit the cloth.
David // June 15, 2009 at 3:54 PM
@mash up buy back
The GIS and government portal should me used to distill the policy for newswires to pick up.
The government needs to make some basic info public like estimated number of illegals and the breakdown. The willingness of this and previous BLP governments to allow conjecture to dominate is clouding the issue.
To stay silent and be pummelled by forces in and out of Barbados allows the issue to by mired in politics.
Adrian Hinds // June 15, 2009 at 4:04 PM
J // June 15, 2009 at 3:36 pm
The Nation is not an academic journal (and neither is the Advocate)
If Lindsay Holder wants to APPEAL to daily newspaper readers he has to learn to make his articles SHORT and SWEET.
Most newspaper readers did NOT graduate from university and are not interested in reading 4-6 page academic discourses. Lindsay should cut the coat to suit the cloth.
————————————————
The two articles are like manna to persons like me who are not intimidated by long articles, that will make the time to read worthwhile opinions, that love to talk and still maintains the layman and the common’s communication skill set. People will get the message, if not by reading, by listening to talkers like me. lol!
Mash up &buy back // June 15, 2009 at 4:06 PM
David
A GIS press release will be lost somewhere in page 21 of the regional newspaper if printed at all.
I think that the barbados government needs to sent out its operatives on the various forums/fora.
Blogs,talkshows,letters to the editors,interviews with regional media houses etc.
What say you?
J // June 15, 2009 at 4:16 PM
Dear David you have written”Over the last couple years BU has articulated, we hope DISPASSIONATELY”
and then you follow up by writing:
“our borders should be assaulted by all and sundry ” these are NOT dispassionate words David.
and “The conspiracy which has emerged across the region” these are NOT dispassionate words David.
and “spin a false position” these are NOT dispassionate workd David.
and “this important issue which is being manipulated ” these are NOT dispassionate words David.
and “a conspiracy by some to take root to undermine” these are NOT dispassionate words David.
and “a regional conspiracy to undermine the reputation and goodwill of Barbados” these are not dispassionate words David.
and “The Fourth Estate …by being unpatriotic in the positions is has taken” these are NOT dispassionate words David.
and “the Nation Newspapers and Voice of Barbados the main culprits” these are NOT dispassionate words David.
and “anti-government sentiment ” these are NOT dispasionate words David.
and “Rickey Singh, who continues to bite the hand which has fed him” these are NOT dispassionate words David.
and “the Fourth Estate ignores the hatchet job being done on the good reputation of Barbados by Singh, Saunders et al” these are NOT dispassionate words David.
and “have spurred an exodus of Guyanese to swarm the smaller Caribbean nations to the South ” these are NOT dispassionate words David. And these islands are NORTH of Guyana, not south. If you do not know this I shudder to think what else you do not know.
David some people might agree with me that you are a jingoistic, hot headed zenophobe and that on BU you give voice to the few people in Barbados who share your views.
Adrian Hinds // June 15, 2009 at 4:22 PM
Mash up and by back I agree with you. history and the truth is not on the side of Mia Mottley, Norman Girvan, Havelok Brewster, George Brathwaite, Ronnie Saunders, Peter Wickham, Barat Jadgeo, Ralph Gonzales , Norman Faria, Ricky Singh, and others. These INDIVIDUALS are scared, angry and emotional on this issue, it shows, and begs the question why? for these are INDIVIDUALS who have not demonstrated much any activity of compassion, or ideas of possible solutions, for very people risking illegal immigrant status in foriegn lands as a result of being marginalize in their very country. Yes WHY? why would they respond with so much anger, lies, and vitrolic unbecoming of the statesmen, Leaders, Academics, and supposedly impartial new practioners? Some of them cannot even hide the contempt they feel for ordinary people that they come into contact with on a daily basis (Peter Wickham) Why? as Linsay Holder ask and I repeat, is it attributed to irrationality. self-interest, or ulterior motives????
David // June 15, 2009 at 4:36 PM
@Adrian and mash up buy back
Agree with you.
Even if the articles are long we have people in the media and other stakeholders for which Holder’s insight will prove to be a good resource.
Government operatives need to get on the Internet and other fora and divide the immigration matter in a Barbados context.
Adrian Hinds // June 15, 2009 at 4:36 PM
Enters Doppleganger J to confuse the thread and discussion with their nonsense. First you should define what “dispassionate” means to you, before listing other peoples statement as not conforming to your understanding. You should try this first before concluding as you childishly did, by retyping others statements to give the same silly monotonous answer. It is a good thing that you can cut and paste otherwise you would have merely engaged in wasting ink and paper.
[quote]
David some people might agree with me that you are a jingoistic, hot headed zenophobe and that on BU you give voice to the few people in Barbados who share your views.
——————————————-
You also would need to substantiate your claim here as well.
Mash up &buy back // June 15, 2009 at 4:43 PM
Adrian J just likes attention.
She has nothing worthwhile to contribute but seeks only to criticise.
A purebred BLP yardie.
20 Less to worry about // June 15, 2009 at 4:48 PM
We are hearing a lot of sob stuff from the publicity-seekers with their scare tactics, about how Guyanese are being hauled out of their beds in the middle of the night, and of course the operative word, which they won’t use is “illegal”, so that the world at large will think that we Bajans are a merciless, heartless bunch. What they’re also not saying is that if this action is taking place, it is simply because Immigration/Police cannot find these illegals during the daylight hours. They’re all hiding out in caves, friends’ houses and anywhere they can find to hide. Furthermore, when they arrive in Barbados they give one address and the very next day they move on to a different address. And I KNOW what I am talking about,believe me. A white friend of mine told me that an Indo-Guyanese told him that he laughs at our Police and Immigration and that he can outfox “a nigger” any day, and he has no intention of being caught and sent back to Guyana. I heard Peter Simmons on Brass Tacks today, and I want someone to find a huge Guyanese family and throw them in Simmons’s house to live and tell him, “tek dah.”
Adrian Hinds // June 15, 2009 at 4:54 PM
She enters the discussion and suddenly feel the need to go visit the urinal. I gine pretend it is de tree she claimed she navel string buried under. lol!
@David the Advocate articles are jpegs, which i have copied and will convert to PDF’s where i can cut out sections. I have not decided how i will go about the breakout of the article, but one way is to do so by Author of comments, which I think Linsay used to drive his approach of juxtapositioning current claims and statements by authors with at odds previous one and facts to refute their position.
J // June 15, 2009 at 4:56 PM
Dear Adrian:
Dispassionate has only ONE meaning.
David is NOT a dispassionate commentator on migration.
Dear mash up and buy back:
I am not now nor have I ever been a member of any political party.
I am not now nor have I ever been friends nor family with any member of any political party.
And before people start accusing me again of being Ezra Alleyne’s woman (what ever her name is) I have never met Mr. Alleyne nor his woman, whatever her name is.
I have no desire to meet any current nor former politicians either.
But I want people to think.
And I want David to defend his statement that he is a DISPASSIONATE commentator on migraton issues.
David // June 15, 2009 at 5:00 PM
@J
BU will defend your right to post.
You are entitled to your opinion.
livinginbarbados // June 15, 2009 at 5:02 PM
@Adrian Hinds
“…BU and LIB has over 3 MILLION links…”
I’m intrigued by this claim, and wonder if you can share the source.
Mash up &buy back // June 15, 2009 at 5:34 PM
F
Mash up &buy back // June 15, 2009 at 5:35 PM
Fine J
Will let sleeping dogs lie.
JC // June 15, 2009 at 5:35 PM
I can see that there will be social unrest in Barbados. If Ricky Singh and company think that bajans will lie down and play dead they have another thing coming.
I was talking to a comrade this evening and I am getting the impression that the Guyanese as well as Jamaicans are deciding to go underground. They have started to go to the opposition leader and ask to remain here in Barbados under the scam of opening a shop or hair dressing salon claiming that htey are business people. Ask Trevor Prescod. He recently carried a Jamaican to his leader to get this Jamaican man to remain here in Barbados. How comes Mia not representing the folks in her constituency, but can represent outsiders.
Mia Mottley we TRUE BAJANS have some news for you and the Trevor Prescods of Barbados. We Bajans are watching you closely and we realise that you dont care nothing about us!
How could you treat your own people like this; we will make sure that you pay dearly with our Xs.
Yesterday I was talking to a Guyanese girl who was here from last year crop over and she has not left yet. she is one who is trying to open a saloon. I ask her where was her credentials that stated the validity of her being a hairdresser! I asked her how they could be so caniving well you know she disappeared I didn’t get her name. But I will make sure I do!
If these persons think that bajans are fools well I guess they will see!
Jay // June 15, 2009 at 5:39 PM
I’m not sure a public campaign is necessary,I do however think that showing solidarity with countries that face the exact same problem of illegal immigration would be quite helpful on the Caricom level,which would include mainly Antigua & St. Kitts.
I also strongly believe that Barbados Government should take the assistance given from Aussies if they are truly giving it.It may not seem like it,but Australia has some stringent immigration regulations that the UK have been trying to mimick & is S or Canada.
http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20090615/lead/lead9.html
“CARIBBEAN COUNTRIES feeling the strain of illegal immigration might soon get assistance to prevent such influx from Australia’s government, says Philip Kentwell, that country’s high commissioner to the Caribbean.
Kentwell, who was in Jamaica last week, told The Gleaner he has met security officials in some Caribbean territories and discussed possible collaboration with their counterparts in Australia. He visited Jamaica in May for talks with Police Commissioner Rear Admiral Hardley Lewin and Major General Stewart Saunders, chief of defence staff.
“Over the last 30 years, we have developed a level of expertise in this area in Australia which we think we can share with the Caribbean,” Kentwell said.
Details withheld
Kentwell did not disclose details of his talks with Lewin and Saunders, but said they spoke about the growing guns-for-drugs trade between criminals in Jamaica and Haiti, which has resulted in the arrests of several persons from both countries.
Last week, Operation Kingfish, an elite squad in the Jamaica Constabulary Force, reported that the United Nations Security Forces had arrested Jamaican Clifford Mills, said to be a major figure in the illicit trade.
Jamaican police have arrested nationals from Haiti and Latin America for illegally entering the country during the last decade. Most of the Haitians land in the east coast parishes of St Thomas and Portland, saying they fled civil unrest in their country.
Fishermen from Honduras and El Salvador have been arrested off the Pedro Cays on Jamaica’s south coast, mainly for fishing without permits.
Caribbean Community member states Barbados and Suriname and the British Virgin Islands, an associate member, have also experienced an influx of illegal immigrants from Haiti and the Dominican Republic.
Problems with foreigners
Australia has had its problems with foreign nationals attempting to enter that country from war-torn countries like Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as China and Indonesia. Former Australian Prime Minister John Howard instituted the Pacific Solution in 2001, using the country’s navy to block boats from coming ashore.
Kentwell, a career diplomat, has been Australia’s high commissioner to the Caribbean since June 2007. He is based in Port-of-Spain, Trinidad and Tobago. “
Jay // June 15, 2009 at 5:42 PM
On that last statement I meant to say,* the Australian regulations are even tougher than that of Canada or the US *
JC // June 15, 2009 at 5:51 PM
You want to know what has e so vex! Trevor Prescod and crew claim that they are Pan Africanists however, they refuse to kickup pist about the atrocities that Ruel Daniels and their fellow pan africanist brothers and sisters state about the awful treatment towards blacks in the very said Guyana.
He is playing politics with this issue and for that I detest his principles! Silly Man!
See how far that will get you.
Sargeant // June 15, 2009 at 5:57 PM
@J
If Lindsay Holder wants to APPEAL to daily newspaper readers he has to learn to make his articles SHORT and SWEET
**************************************
How short is your attention span? Holder provided a very detailed article on how we arrived at this junction in our history, he traced the history of the failed West Indian integration movements. He recalled the statements made by the various leaders in the region and contrasted them with what the current leaders are saying today. He dissected the various writings of the “journalists” among us and proved that at best they are hypocrites and at worse just pushing a political agenda. He provided some background on how the European countries are dealing with a similar issue. His article was very well balanced as far as I am concerned. If the article was too long for you just give me your PO Box no. and I will forward some Archie and Jughead comics.
Those should be just the right length
JC // June 15, 2009 at 6:03 PM
LOLLOLha ha ha
Checkmate-123 // June 15, 2009 at 6:04 PM
Hahahahaha! Australia does take a tougher stance against illegal immigration than most other countries. But a birdie told me that in 2005, the Australian government estimated that over 50, 000 persons were undocumented. It is a real eye-opener that so many people know everything except the hard facts. Wunna mek me laugh!
David // June 15, 2009 at 6:11 PM
@Checkmate
Remember what the issue is all about.
It’s pity we have some Barbadian academics who would usurp their role for narrow partisan political positions.
The BLP left the immigration mess to clean up, let’s put our heads together and do it. Time for playing childish games has come to an end!
On 6/15/09, David wrote: @mash up buy back
The GIS and government portal should me used to distill the policy for newswires to pick up. The government needs to make some basic info public like estimated number of illegals and the breakdown. The willingness of this and previous BLP governments to allow conjecture to dominate is clouding the issue. To stay silent and be pummelled by forces in and out of Barbados allows the issue to by mired in politics.
J // June 15, 2009 at 6:23 PM
Dear Sargeant:
I have no post office box, because I am happy to receive all and any mail right at home.
Do you want my home address?
Thanks for offering the comics.
Hopi // June 15, 2009 at 6:32 PM
Just took a quick look thru some of the 2001 revised Treaty and Articles 46 para 3 & 47 para.1 gives Bajans and David Thompson the right to protect & preserve Barbados from any and all economic and social (and other)hardships. (Not that this sovereign nation should need authority from outsiders). So press on with the interest of Barbados and let the chips fall where the hell they may.
Also listened in to that J’ca interview with George Brathwaite. He came across as a featherweight without any substance at all just pure emotion. To hear him stuttering around for the lack of proper words was truly a stomach churning moment, almost like nails on a chalkboard. True replica of traitors in our midst.
As for Mottley–also true to form – a house nigress/er. This kind will always stay true to the illusion of power, money and prestige. That’s the oil in their engines. They are not interested in the sovereignty of that puny island, just sell out to the highest bidder, simply because the Bajan population for the most part has relinquished its welfare to the long-whiskered billygoats whose real mission is no different from their four-legged prototype of the barnyard stock.
Should Barbados continue on the path of allowing Jadeo’s group to migrate and exhibit their clanish behaviour on that island, the Black people will soon be reduced to status of the Black “UNTOUCHABLES” in India who are relegated to lowest status in that society, where they are only employed to clean the sewage systems and filter thru the dumps for scraps to eat.
Bajans stay vigilant!
Jay // June 15, 2009 at 6:40 PM
Checkmate-123,yah play de wrong move & ya know it,lol.
What you failed to recognize was that most of the illegals in Aussie land are American & Brits.Australia also requires a visa for every single country in the world & has a population of 21 million people.
That would equate to every 430th person in Aussie land being illegal,while in Barbados it would be every 10th person,in the US it would be every ~15th person & Bermuda with every ~332nd person,get it now !
JC // June 15, 2009 at 7:56 PM
Very good point Jay you are smart!
JC // June 15, 2009 at 7:59 PM
As a bajan I feel shame about George~!
Johnny Postle // June 15, 2009 at 10:28 PM
Why would any one want to listen to Peter Simmons, whose loyalty to lies, liars and leeches, is marked with the stamp of BLP politricks.
How can we be sympathetic to a ruthless invasion of our borders by traitors doing so for financial rewards. Is there no end to the manipulative endeavours of these evil tyrants.
Even though the Prime Minister and his troopers starting to smell stink in some areas, I am going to support the immigration policy tooth and nail. If you want to come to Barbados and live do so legally and not illegally. Because if you are illegal you break the law and thus are subject to the laws full force.
J // June 15, 2009 at 11:02 PM
The Scout wrote: “YES, Sen Maxine McClean had stated that there are about 60,000 to 70,000 illegal persons in Barbados. I think that is the figure she gave.”
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, no wonder that the people on these blogs hate my REASON-ABLE-ness.
If Ms. McLean said that Barbados has 60,00 to 70,000 illegal immigrants, then she is wrong, or maybe the Scout is mistaken in what he believes Ms. McLean said.
Sit down children while I give you a basic lesson in statistics/demographics. I will make it real life as real as we can get.
Check your newspapers from the past few weeks to find out how many children took the 11+ exam. Yes about 3,800 children took the exam this year and about the same number last year, and the year before and the year before and very likely the same number will take the exam next year.
Now multiply 3,800 children by 12 years (that is by the number of children who are in the following classes, Reception, Infants A, Infants B, Class 1, Class 2, Class 3, Class 4, 1st form, 2nd form, 3rd form, 4th form and 5th form) now the number that you should get if you can do multiplication as well as an 11+ child is 45,600 which means that Barbados has 45,600 school age children.
Does any body out there really believe that we have as many illegal immigrants as we have school children and then about 50% more or 24,400 more.
Look people if you believe that nonsense about Barbados having 60,000 to 70,000 illegal immigrants then you are permitting yourself to be manipulated by people who believe that you cannot do 11+ arithmetic; or by power hungry people who are motivated by naked racism and xenophobia.
I don’t care what the Scout writes or what the Scout believes that Ms. McLean has said; Barbados does NOT have anywhere near 60,000 to 70,000 illegal immigrants. In truth the correct figure is likely less than 10% of 60,000.
Ask yourself then why the DLP led hysteria about illegal immigration?
J // June 15, 2009 at 11:32 PM
Tis debate or rather this shouting reminds me of the time of Dr. Scholsberg who tole us that half of us would be dead by 2000.
We believed that nonsense.
I have even had some people tell me that Dr. Scholsberg was right and Dr. Waldron was wrong, even though we know very well that half of Barbados is not HIV+
It reminds me also of the time of my youth when a statistic of 7 women to every man was bandied about. Barbados has NEVER had and will NEVER have 7 women to every man, yet a lot of people believed that nonsense too.
So NOPE there are not 70,000 recent immigrants to Barbados, legal nor illegal,
The Scout // June 16, 2009 at 3:17 AM
J
You just used a very vague method to ascertain the amount of illegals in this country. Please let me use mine; take an early bus out of St. Lucy, St.Philip, St.John, St. Joseph, St George a morning, if there are 10 bajans on a crowded bus, there are a lot. Drive on almost every construction site in Barbados and listen to the accent of the workers, only 10% speaks bajan. Drive through the length and breathe of Barbados and observe the number of workers in the agricultural fields; only 10% or so are locals. Go into the “big boys’ houses in Barbados and see the nationality of most of their domestic workers; certainly not bajan. Then go into B’town and observe the workers in the stores, again certainly not bajan. What is most alarming, is going into B’town on Friday or Saturday and just casually walk the street and observe that bajans are outnumbered in the city on these days. If only about 15% at most of these people are legal, then that estimate CANNOT be too far out. Some of you people drive around in your a/c SUV’s and don’t have a clue of what is going on in Barbados. I haven’t even mentioned the ones who stay at home and look after the many children who do not attend any school because they are illegal> I have even observe a few now driving ZR’s and Mini-buses. All I would say to all you, keep camping under the eruptive volcano.
The Scout // June 16, 2009 at 4:06 AM
It has to be stated that flights come into Barbados every day from Guyana and other regional countries. Most of the passengers are persons from the region and areallowed entry into this country, once they documents are legitimate. In other words Barbados has not ban anyone from coming into the country. What we have done is tighten up on the whole system to prevent those who come here and don’t even know where they are staying or at whom. All they want to do is get pass the immigration and customs. We CANNOT afford a “free-for-all” mentality to continue. If my P.M is to plea guilty for protecting the interest and sovereignty of Barbados, then Mr P.M plea GUILTY not with an explanation but with PRIDE>
The Scout // June 16, 2009 at 6:05 AM
It seems that guyanese in Barbados believe that they are not guilty of anything by being in Barbados illegal. Here is a mother complaining that her 23 yr old son, who has been here illegal for 2 or 3 yrs and picked up for deportation , has done nothing wrong. This is the biggest understatement of the year. Lady, when that guy, who admitted he came to Barbados to find work, did not tell the immigration dept that or else he would have been returned. He most likely told them he was on holiday and was given 2 wks in the country. His false declaration was his first crime, i.e misleading the Barbados Government. secondly he starts to work, he did not have a work permit at first, my government assisted him for the period the employer/s needed him. Thirdly, he again overstayed his time since his work permit for that particular jog had expired. Please lady, tell me seriously what my government did wrong in sending him back home. What you should be doing is lamenting the bad government in Guyana for not being able or willing to look after its citizens. Barbados CANNOT solve Guyana’s woes, and we bajans WILL NOT allow it to happen in any case.
Anonymous // June 16, 2009 at 6:22 AM
J
I agree with you about the number of illegal immigrants. The Government is doing the correct and responsible thing to uphold the law and to ensure that the number of illegal immigrants do not reach numbers that are problematic. But I find it interesting that no official of Government has put a figure on the number of illegal immigrants. Ms McClean as a talk show moderator use to frequently ask about the number of illegal immigrants; to paraphrase her she would intone “we’ve got to find out”. She subsequently became a Minister of Government and more importantly the minister with responsibility for immigration matters. She was in this post for nearly a year. I have never heard or read of a official estimate on the number of illegal immigrants during that time. Ms McClean has moved on to the Foreign Affairs assignment. PM Thompson has recently announced the now discussed policy on illegal immigrants and again there has been no estimate of the scope of the problem of illegal immigrants.
I believe that the number of illegal immigrants is much lower than that of popular opinion. Please note that I am not referring to the total number of immigrants (legal and illegal) but to the illegal portion. I also believe most of the illegal immigrants to be the female consorts of documented workers. These women are probably mostly working as domestics and shop assistants.
So why has the Government announced the policy at this time? I can only speculate but I believe that it is doing so for the following reasons:
1) It is correct to uphold the law on immigration.
2) It resonates with popular concern that there are too large a number of immigrants.
3) It is part of a wider propaganda effort to discredit the opposition BLP (and Ms Mottley is NOT helping her party in her responses).
4) It signals to both local employers and potential immigrants that Government has concerns about immigration numbers as a whole particularly at a time of economic contraction.
By the way, the number of children sitting the common entrance exam has been falling every year.
David // June 16, 2009 at 6:41 AM
Isn’t amazing how a country enforcing its laws but more importantly trying to manage its resources at a very difficult time is being crucified by other countries that have not done a good job? Didn’t PJ Patterson talk about lesser developed countries in Caricom creating stress on the union?
Now the latest intervention by the academics is something called contingent rights. Yes we agree these illegals have rights but…
David // June 16, 2009 at 6:53 AM
Secondly we commend David Ellis yesterday for the passionate but balanced contribution he made to the immigration issue. A pity under the last government the media misplaced its tongue.
Maxine McClean HAS quoted a number on a talk show program of 50 000. Remember all this speculation could have been avoided if the former government had put a proper immigration system in place, see Auditor General’s Report 2008.
Ready-Done // June 16, 2009 at 6:59 AM
Any one that catches the bus can tell you Barbados got in allot Guyanese, once i was in a van and a drunk man get in and shout ‘wait this gine Bridgetown or Georgetown’ the little bit of Bajans break down and the Guyanese would not let he go any further down in the in the bus. That was 8 years ago.
The government should tell us how much them is deport and if them get deport more than once. I don’t think them could give accurate numbers as to how much here because them illegal, then again them should got all entries & exits for the island documented.
Their should be a squad that has the purpose of finding those that overstay there welcome and not notify the authorities, before they get a chance to make bonds in society making removing them a difficult task.
‘It is part of a wider propaganda effort to discredit the opposition BLP’ Them discredit them self on this issue, no one likes law breakers in Barbados.
ROK // June 16, 2009 at 8:13 AM
David
“Isn’t amazing how a country enforcing its laws but more importantly trying to manage its resources at a very difficult time is being crucified by other countries that have not done a good job?”
It is even more ridiculous that we could be blamed for the plight of people whose plight in their own country has caused them to run. The problem is not Barbados, it is Guyana because certainly, if Guyana with all its wealth (tons more than Barbados) was properly managed, Guyanese would not be leaving Guyana like swarms of bees to become problems to every country in the Caribbean. It is not just Barbados if you think so; it is every single Caribbean nation, so I don’t mind Ralph Gonsalves and his musings.
Right now, St. Lucians are complaining, Antiguans are complaining, Vincentians are complaining too, so Ralph, you better be careful you don’t lose your seat.
Furthermore, Vincentians, especially, have been tolerated and entertained in Barbados since I was a lad. I see a lot of their children surfacing as Barbadians; surnames like Louis, Jessamy, Rosemond, Platt, Duplessis, Charles, etc. not at all common to the Bajan stock of names.
All of Nelson Street, New Orleans, etc. were Vincentians and St. Lucians and nobody seemed to have cared that they were legal or illegal.
St Vincent had two boats, one owned by a man named Mr. King that used to come here and offload at the Careenage; fruits, vegetables and people to sell the produce. Fairchild Street market was full of them.
We have undertaken our fair share of Caribbean community commitments over the years and provided a home for thousands of Caribbean nationals. It is therefore bogus to start to charge Barbados with a problem that squarely belongs to Guyana…
but even more damning is the fact that Guyanese themselves treat one another badly and many of them who have gained status here are unfairing their fellowmen; human trafficking and slavery if you ask me. They bring their countrymen here, stack them like sardines in old chattel houses, hold their passports under the guise of getting work permits which they never get and work their asses off for a pittance.
Furthermore, if any one of them give trouble, they would get set up to be picked up by immigration and deported. All Guyanese doing this to their own; no Bajans involved here.
Even Norman Faria don’t treat Guyanese like human beings and I am not telling what I heard, I witnessed it for myself; carries them along like animals and curse them in the worse way.
So when I see he in the media posturing all I saying is, what a hypocrite! He treats them worse than any Bajan would treat them; even immigration. he would victimise them and refuse to renew passports for some of them, leaving them stranded and at the mercy of the law. I had to intervene in several cases where he refused to renew a passport.
Thing is when I turned up at his house with Guyanese, they would get the renewals the same time and with all the apologies. One day I turned up with a Guyanese who said that he had refused to renew his passport and he wanted to leave. I wanted to know the beast I was dealing with because I could not believe that Norman Faria used to behave so. I put the man to knock on the door and stayed off to see what would happen. When Norman saw him, he started up with words like; “man I tell you to call before you come at my (f) house; don’t ever come here so again…” but when he see me, it was Oh! Mr. King, come on in. Hypocrite.
For me that verified what the man was saying and that the man had obviously visited Faria before. I did not leave until he gave the man the renewal so the man could get on a plane without being deported. Wicked fellow that Faria. He could take me to court because it happened and I still got the man contact information. He never stopped thanking me, up to today by e-mail.
livinginbarbados // June 16, 2009 at 8:15 AM
@David
I did not hear all of Brass Tacks yesterday, but agree that Mr. Ellis was passionate. He also raised several questions that were not well answered, in particular “What is the government doing that is wrong?” Amongst the things it is doing wrong is not setting the outline policy in a proper context (numbers, economic sectors affected, etc.) and allowing a lot of speculation to swirl around what they know to be a very sensitive issue: the impact of foreigners on domestic activities.
I do not know if Ms. McLean made her claim of 50,000 illegal immigrants when she was a talk show host, but I do not recall her or any other minister making a public or Parliamentary claim on the numbers in the two years that I have been in Barbados; that latter is interesting because lying to Parliament is a very serious act of misconduct. That tells a very disturbing story about the ignorance within which the governments have operated and we see why in the AG’s report on the poor state of information systems at the Immigration Department.
But, putting numbers aside for a moment. If we agree that the government should put a stop to illegal acts, then we need to look at who will help do that and what consequences there may be. Illegal migrants are not existing in a vacuum: they are being helped to a large extent by native Barbadians (unless we are to believe that there is a closed circle in which illegal migrants exists). So, the employers of illegal migrants in contruction, agriculture, domestic services, and illicit actitives; as well as those who depend on illegal migrants for sales and rent of homes must make some choices.
They could decide to help to regularise the status of illegal migrants because it is in their self interest to keep the services of these people. Assuming they are successful, these workers will remain but with legal status. This move would only be a problem to achieve in the area of illicit activities.
They could decide to do nothing to regularise the illegal migrants, hoping that they will no longer need their services (economy down now) or will be able to replace them later with either legal migrants or local Barbadians: if either move fails then they will have to reassess the viability of their enterprises.
Now, getting back to the numbers. The higher the level of illegal immigrants the greater will be the problem for those who have facilitated their lives.
For me, the resolution of any problem of illegal immigrants is much less one that depends on them but depends more on those who support, need and use them.
Some key players know that the loss of illegal immigrants’ services will spell the death knell for their activities. It will be interesting to hear if they speak out or if they work quitely to get as many as possible regularised.
Negrocrat // June 16, 2009 at 10:12 AM
This immigration issue continues to be blown out of proportion. Mia and the BLP that she leads do not care about their country Barbados. The y are only interested in power but the electors are not that foolish.
Negrocrat
Adrian Hinds // June 16, 2009 at 10:47 AM
@livinginbarbados
I did not hear all of Brass Tacks yesterday, but agree that Mr. Ellis was passionate. He also raised several questions that were not well answered, in particular “What is the government doing that is wrong?” Amongst the things it is doing wrong is not setting the outline policy in a proper context (numbers, economic sectors affected, etc.) and allowing a lot of speculation to swirl around what they know to be a very sensitive issue: the impact of foreigners on domestic activities.
————————————————–
First, in response to your query yesterday, please do your own research on link popularity. I have no information to freely give to you.
….Todays popularity link check show LIB holding no.1 spot 3.37 milllion links followed by BU with 3.30 million and BFP a distant 8th 3.3 thousand, out of now 11 blogs/forums I am tracking.
….If I am to believe Dennis Jones words above, it would seem that Norman Girvan, George Braithwaite, Havelock Brewster, Ronnie Saunders, Norman Faria, Barat Jagdeo, Ralph Gonzales, Ricky Singh, Mia Mottley , and others are not to be blamed for the angry, emotional, and sophomoric responses they made to the PM announce Immigration policy. Would it not have been prudent to call for clarification, and details before concluding as they all have? Why have they with just an outline not framed as you say in the context to numbers etc fly off the handle and sought to paint all of Barbados much the same as you have done in the two to three years you have been living in Barbados? Am I permitted to conclude as you and your academic friends have done? Your comments about Barbadians are no different than that of others like Ralph Gonzales who Linsay Holder reminded us once said that Bajans believe they are cut above the rest. Truth is you didn’t need any better outline or context, you reproduce George Braithwaite’s attempt to redefine immigrant status labels in the context of this current debate, you have concluded, and therefore this call for proper context is a sham as far as I am concerned.
We have been calling for the numbers for a long time . Peter Wickham asked Mia Mottley about them in 2005, no answer, all she would acknowledge is that there is a higher number of them here than at any time before. But Mia Mottley did at some other point give us a breakdown that no one believed, and this is why some of her remaining supporters are willing to stake the claim that actual numbers of illegal’s are less than the numbers bandied about.
Owen Arthur told Barbados to blame themselves for the HIGH number of Guyanese here
Owen Arthur said people working in agriculture and construction were being paid lower wages than Barbadians for doing the same work
Who said?
“The separatist propensities of the East Indian, almost naturally developed a label “Apanjaat” meaning “ones” own kind, which the East Indian grew to understand from their earliest years and did not have to repeat it, which is an important point. “Apanjaat” became a worry, mainly for the blacks who had nothing to confront it with…….
Who said?
“With the Owen Arthur styled Caribbean Single Market and Economy, Barbadians are witnessing the opposite of the vision of the “founding fathers” of Caribbean Integration. Rather than over populated Barbados providing the vastly under populated Guyana with skilled and productive workers, the Guyanese labor force is being siphoned off to Barbados in a scheme designed to lower the wages of Barbadian workers and produce more profits for the Barbadian capital class.
J // June 16, 2009 at 11:03 AM
Scout wrote “Some of you people drive around in your a/c SUV’s and don’t have a clue of what is going on in Barbados.”
As a matter of good economic and enviromental sense I have not had a car for more than 10 years and I intend never again to own a motor vehicle. I take 6 buses every day, and yes I do know what is happening in Barbados.
I do not live in an insulated air-conditioned bubble.
And to anonymous who wrote at 6:22 “By the way, the number of children sitting the common entrance exam has been falling every year.”
Indeed you are correct. I remember when slightly more than 4,000 children took the 11+ each year. But that has not happened for years. Barbados’ birth rate has been falling steadily for more than 30 years. This is a very serious matter which should have been occupying the minds of the DLP and BLP leadeship for the past 30 years.
Instead we get silliness about illigal migration.
The real serious question is how can Bajans be persuaded to have more children?
I’d like to hear coments on this from the party faithfuls (of both parties)
Adrian Hinds // June 16, 2009 at 11:24 AM
In my last contribution, I sought to remind persons where Dennis Jones stand on the current debate, don’t let his fluff, bluff you. He is as condesending as Ralp Gonzales has been towards Bajans. I also sought to demonstate that even if we do not know the exact number of illegals here, that; 1: the call from academics for such is to stymie the progress of the debate, argument and momentum away from their position; 2: that the BLP has known for sometime and believe as we all do that the numbers of guyanese here is unusually high. I also sought to portray the silliness of attracting migrant labour from a society frought with racial tension, and the clear stupidity of thinking that we can integrate, unite and come together with persons who have no such intent. Lastly I sought to demonstrate the inconsistencies of some of the current anti-Barbados club members.
am J this is not the article about, finding a man, getting pregnant etc. Maybe you should try digging up your navel string and let the wonders of modern medicine reproduce your contribution to growing Barbados society.
Hopi // June 16, 2009 at 11:26 AM
@livinginB’dos……….Why don’t you just come right out and say that YOU support having all these illegal immigrants in Barbados and that the Bajans are wrong for wanting to get ‘rid’ of them, instead of talking in circles?
livinginbarbados // June 16, 2009 at 11:29 AM
@Adrian Hinds
Your response on the Internet traffic is an interesting indicator of what it is to collaborate. (My own data show numbers sugnificantly smaller, so I will not believe the inflated figures. Some could say the same about immigration statistics.) One of the traits of bureaucracies that I have seen but never understood, is the way that people treat information as proprietary. Then again, we know that knowledge is power, and if shared some feel that it somehow weakens the provider. However, it puts exchanges on blogs such as this into interesting perspective. Anancy is alive and well.
My discussion of the immigration issue is not specific to Barbados, but applies universally. It’s not an academic exercise to ask what is the dimension of the problem? It lets me (and I do not speak for anyone else) know what I am dealing with. In the same way that a vendor complains of Guyanese taking away his customers but when asked he can say that he only knows of one Guyanese vending the same product, I am trying to distinguish between impressions and reality.
There is a policy that can be put in place to manage migration, but it depends first on the gate keepers doing their jobs: Immigration Department seems not to have done so. It means that those who see an easy route to their economic and financial success from using illegal and cheaper labour facing some consequences for that: I have not read of any construction or agrucultural enterprises that have been sanctioned for using illegal immigrant workers. I have heard a furore about possible illegal Chinese workers on some major project but that seemed to pass after some Ministerial and corporate assurances. I have not read of any housing inspections that have cited landlords for overcrowding.
Everyone seems to know the places where illicit sex is on sale, yet, in pulling in the sex workers. What do the profiles show? Why is that traffic tolerated and the illegals who work in in deported with haste?
Barbados is a very small place, we know and are constantly told, yet dealing with things seem to be as difficult as if the place were as vast as Russia. I know each equally well and the inability to solve problems in a small land mass makes no sense and points to a certain complicity at many levels.
If one is satisfied to ask questions of responsible persons and institutions and then live with no answers, then fine. I think that is apathy.
livinginbarbados // June 16, 2009 at 11:35 AM
For those really reading, the passage should have read:.
“Ministerial and corporate assurances. I have not read of any housing inspections that have cited landlords for overcrowding WITH ILLEGAL MIGRANT TENANTS.
Everyone seems to know the places where illicit sex is on sale, yet, in pulling in the sex workers, WHAT do the profiles show? Why is that traffic tolerated and the illegals who SUPPOSEDLY work in IT NOT deported with haste?”
J // June 16, 2009 at 11:39 AM
Adrian HInds wrote “let the wonders of modern medicine reproduce your contribution to growing Barbados society.”
My reproductions are already making a sterling contribution to Barbados’ society.
Can you say the same?
I gone.
Adrian Hinds // June 16, 2009 at 11:47 AM
@LIB:
I am not hoarding infomation. It is publicaly available. I have no interest in collaborating with you on anything. Google link popularity and have your fill, it is what i did. What is the utility in discussing global immigration within debates about illegal immigration in Barbados, while at the same time ignoring the details behind the positions for and against what is occuring locally? You have demonstrated your position time and time again. It starts with a dim view of Bajans, so your position on the BARBADOS IMMIGRATION debate and inspite of the fluff (global trends in immigration) could as well been arrived at by sticking your middle finger at us under the pretence of get sense of the winds of positions opposite to those of the pesky bajans.
livinginbarbados // June 16, 2009 at 11:49 AM
@Anonymous
“Why don’t you just come right out and say that YOU support having all these illegal immigrants in Barbados and that the Bajans are wrong for wanting to get ‘rid’ of them, instead of talking in circles?”
But my point says nothing about letting illegal immigrants stay in Barbados. I am not in favour of it at all. What I said was that the problem needs to be tackled from its two sides, and also its magnitude known. Sorry, as an economist, I see the supply (illegals) and demand (all those who use them).
What I envisage is that if Caricom non-national illegals are not regularised and evicted, that source of supply will be shut off, but with a demand still in place (construction, agriculture, sex, rentals), someones will need to fill that void. There may be enough willing Barbadians, but I suspect not. Otherwise, the demanders may be looking again to retap another supply of illegal immigrants.
Here’s the farce that I saw in west Africa: illegals (coming to work in diamond and gold mines) were evicted across one border point, but at another, a new stock was coming in. You cannot control what you do not control.
Adrian Hinds // June 16, 2009 at 12:05 PM
Who said?
“The separatist propensities of the East Indian, almost naturally developed a label “Apanjaat” meaning “ones” own kind, which the East Indian grew to understand from their earliest years and did not have to repeat it, which is an important point. “Apanjaat” became a worry, mainly for the blacks who had nothing to confront it with…….
Recently departed Richard Allsopp who gave us the Caribbean Dictionary, he was a guyanese, and made it very clear why he left Guyana in 1963
Who said?
“With the Owen Arthur styled Caribbean Single Market and Economy, Barbadians are witnessing the opposite of the vision of the “founding fathers” of Caribbean Integration. Rather than over populated Barbados providing the vastly under populated Guyana with skilled and productive workers, the Guyanese labor force is being siphoned off to Barbados in a scheme designed to lower the wages of Barbadian workers and produce more profits for the Barbadian capital class.
David Commisiong who now head some committee called the Coalition for a Humane Amnesty.
…..Here we find the Pragmatics joining a coalition that can only at this point claim that the new immigration policy has a POTENTIAL TO BE INHUMANE, THAT THEY ARE SUSPICIOUS OF THE REASON FOR THE NEW POLICY IS DRIVEN BY GLOBAL ECONOMICS, AND THAT IT SEEMS TO BE SENDIN A MESSAGE OF NOT WELCOME.
So we have so called pragmatist reacting to unexplained POTENTIALITIES, SUSPICIONS as to the core reasons for a policy, and PERCEPTIONS not corroborated by facts.
They want proof of numbers from the GoB and are unwilling to give any for their positions.
David // June 16, 2009 at 12:07 PM
@LIB
Barbadians are NOT against the use of migrant labour. All we want is that an orderly and managed system be placed to match labour supply with demand.
livinginbarbados // June 16, 2009 at 12:15 PM
@David
“Barbadians are NOT against the use of migrant labour. All we want is that an orderly and managed system be placed to match labour supply with demand.”
I would not be so sure about that. I think a not insignificant segment of Barbadians are against migrant labour. For the jobs that most people can hope to compete for, most of the migrant labour (legal or illegal) is likely to be at lower wages/softer terms and conditions. My impression is that Barbadians are not keen to see such downward pressure on wages. This is a long-standing economic issue.
I’m not sure, but presume that the ‘labour supply’ you refer to is that made up of nationals. But, the argument suggests having some clear idea of the national labour supply/demand balance, and as this is not a command economy, that happens through price (which is where the ‘illegals’ have leverage).
Hopi // June 16, 2009 at 12:20 PM
@LIB……..You never miss an opportunity to mention that you are an economist, so since you always bring it up, why is the world facing economic turmoil now and how will you solve it and how are you single-handedly aiding the Barbados, Jamaican and Guyanese economy right now?
“For me, the resolution of any problem of illegal immigrants is much less one that depends on them but depends more on those who support, need and use them.”
Seems like you don’t care that the problem of illegal immigrants is resolved one way or the other,neither do you care that there are illegal immigrants and how they affect Barbados as a whole,you just care about the affect their removal will have on those who depend on them? To sum it up you only care about the law-breakers!
“They could decide to help to regularise the status of illegal migrants because it is in their self interest to keep the services of these people.”
The problem here is that of one’s ’self-interest.’ Barbados did not get to the point where she’s at now because of the self-interest on one or a few!
Should they regularise all illegal immigrants? And where will you put them? Or should ALL just live live rats with the population bursting at the seams, resulting in societal disintegration?
David // June 16, 2009 at 12:26 PM
Let us agree to disagree.
In the agriculture sector we should have no issues with matching demand to supply given the unwillingness of Bajans to compete on that front.
For many years the former government used/manipulated the construction sector to fuelled the economy. It has created an artificial/transient demand for labour which would not have been sustainable.
In these two sectors a visible and orderly approach to matching demand to supply would be acceptable. The Chinese have been operating in Barbados for years but have become embroiled in the current debate.
Adrian Hinds // June 16, 2009 at 12:30 PM
See this is what i mean about fluff to bluff. George C Brathwaite wrote SOME TERMS CAN AND DO SEND WRONG MESSAGES: A CLARIFICATION ON ‘ILLEGAL MIGRANTS’
which was done to redefine or make null and void what our constitution which is still the supreme law of Barbados says about citizenship status and immigration. It is an attempt to have some treaty that the Government of the day signed on and that may be at odds with the constitution to take precident in our lives.
Dennis Jones sought out George Brathwaite’s approval to post his comments on his blog, they were not submitted by George. I can only assumed that he agree with the contents before seeking this approval to post. Yet he is here willing to tell us that he does not support illegal immigration, when he may have agreed with George that such a label does not exist.
livinginbarbados // June 16, 2009 at 12:35 PM
Adrian
“What is the utility in discussing global immigration within debates about illegal immigration in Barbados, while at the same time ignoring the details behind the positions for and against what is occuring locally? You have demonstrated your position time and time again. It starts with a dim view of Bajans, so your position on the BARBADOS IMMIGRATION debate and inspite of the fluff (global trends in immigration) could as well been arrived at by sticking your middle finger at us under the pretence of get sense of the winds of positions opposite to those of the pesky bajans.”
We’ve had this discussion before, and a straw man is just that. You presume my position, which then makes it easy to try to dismiss my argument. So, let me say that ‘pesky bajans’ is your term. I take exception to things that do not make sense.
My discussion is not about global immigration (and even if it were, then illegal immigration would be a subset).
Illegals do not arrive in Barbados in spaceships or just on boats at dead of night at ports where no one pays attention. They mainly come through the legitimate ports of entry. From there, things go wrong. Some may give false information/have false documentation to secure access to the country: bad intent on one side, but also poor compliance system. For those who employ an ‘illegal’ it means that they conveniently turn a blind eye (and it happens at many levels). Some may give honest information, but then cannot be tracked if they overstay: Barbados is no different from most countries there, and an overstayer’s problem only comes when he/she tries to leave and it’s clear that the person has overstayed.
The quest for data is to deal with such claims as are made about pressure on resources.
livinginbarbados // June 16, 2009 at 12:41 PM
@Adrian
Interesting point for David to reflect on, when seeking to widen debate by asking BLP supporters to post on BU, so as to balance the contributions of known DLP commentators.
George’s writings are his own, but I also know that that is proprietory and it is just common curtesy to seek approval to post the material. If he refuses, so be it.
What a to-do if you seek to widen discussion, but only for some!
Adrian Hinds // June 16, 2009 at 12:52 PM
you said:
My discussion of the immigration issue is not specific to Barbados, but applies universally.
you also said:
My discussion is not about global immigration (and even if it were, then illegal immigration would be a subset).
Does not the universality of your non-Barbados specific immigration points makes your conversation global in nature?????
@ David:
I just emailed you George C Brathwaite’s 7 page response to Linsay Holders two articles. At your convenience please put it up so we can have a go at it. Interestingly he titled it “RED ALERT IN CARICOM” he wasn’t nice to Mr. Holder. Think of HOW a scared canine would bare his teeth in a last ditch to save it’s life by baring it’s teeth.
livinginbarbados // June 16, 2009 at 12:55 PM
@Hopi
“You never miss an opportunity to mention that you are an economist, so since you always bring it up [MY BAD. NOT EVERYONE KNOWS THAT IS MY PROFESSION AND IT IS MEANT TO BE CONTEXT. BUT IF IT DETRACTS, THEN SO BE IT.]
“Why is the world facing economic turmoil now and how will you solve it [BAD LENDING DECISIONS, BAD SUPERVISION, BAD PERSONAL AND CORPORATE DEBT MANAGEMENT. INSTITUTIONS THAT STAYED WITH GOOD PRACTICES HAVE TENDED TO BE LESS/NOT AFFECTED.] and how are you single-handedly aiding the Barbados, Jamaican and Guyanese economy right now?” [I AM NOT. I DO NOT WORK FOR OR WITH ANY GOVERNMENT. TO TRY SINGLE-HANDLEDLY TO AID ANY CARIBBEAN COUNTRY SEEMS A BIT CRAZY, ANYWAY.]
“For me, the resolution of any problem of illegal immigrants is much less one that depends on them but depends more on those who support, need and use them.”
Seems like you don’t care that the problem of illegal immigrants is resolved one way or the other,neither do you care that there are illegal immigrants and how they affect Barbados as a whole,you just care about the affect their removal will have on those who depend on them? To sum it up you only care about the law-breakers! [NOT AT ALL. FOR COMPARISON: IT'S TOO EASY TO TARGET THOSE WHO ACCEPT BRIBES, AND DO NOTHING ABOUT THOSE WHO GIVE THEM. THAT'S NO SOLUTION.]
“They could decide to help to regularise the status of illegal migrants because it is in their self interest to keep the services of these people.”
The problem here is that of one’s ’self-interest.’ Barbados did not get to the point where she’s at now because of the self-interest on one or a few! [I DID NOT SAY ONE OR A FEW. THE SELF INTEREST IS OF MANY. IT MUST BE SO IF YOU SAY THAT A COUNTRY OF 280,000 HAS 50-70,000 ILLEGALS LIVING AND WORKING THERE.]
Should they regularise all illegal immigrants? And where will you put them? [THE PM'S STATEMENT SAYS THAT IF ILLEGALS REGULARISE THEIR STATUS THEY CAN STAY. SO, HE EITHER HOPES THAT THEY DO NOT REGULARISE OR HE FEELS THAT HE CAN ACCOMMODATE THOSE WHO DO. THAT'S WHY THE NUMBERS BECOME IMPORTANT.] Or should ALL just live live rats with the population bursting at the seams, resulting in societal disintegration
David // June 16, 2009 at 12:58 PM
Thanks Adrian, George emailed the document which we have not had a chance to read. Unfortunately he appears reluctant to join the debate on BU.
Adrian Hinds // June 16, 2009 at 1:05 PM
Ok David:
George is an academic or at least he behaves like one. by that I mean he doesn’t discuss or debate with lay people he tells us what we shoud do and how we should think lol! We got to give some credit to Dennis Jones for slugging it out with us lay-people from time to time. However I will never forgive him for his Anti Bajan comments but then again he is a Jamaican, so I should understand?. lol! my god that ascent! ha ha ha ha ha
David // June 16, 2009 at 1:10 PM
@LIB
A point of clarification.
Our interpretation is that the regularization process will determine the value the immigrant is making. The government we have to give credit would have scoped this issue in a way to adequate inform the recent policy. The PM has stated that he will come clean on this matter, the nation waits.
Hopi // June 16, 2009 at 1:26 PM
@LIB………..You are a classic eg of an indoctrinated mind trying to spread your influence. As an economist you tend to think according to your ‘inducation’ as opposed to stepping out of that indoctrinated box and examining the real situation. None of the reasons you’ve given above about the downturn in the economy are real.
So what do you do as an economist? Shouldn’t you be at the helm of the movement in the C’bean to help stabalise economies? What are you doing with all your expertise? Why would it be a bit crazy for you to aid the region?
You did not say one or a few, neither did you say the many. You said ‘their’ self-interest. ‘Their’ being the lawbreaking employers/upholders.’ Are they in the majority that you would call them the ‘many’ and the ‘many’ is not equivalent to the ‘majority’ since the #s are in dispute. Out of that 50-70k how many are actually employed?
How do you know what the PM ‘feels’ and ‘hopes?’
Hopi // June 16, 2009 at 1:32 PM
@LIB……..Don’t Articles 46 para 3 & 47 para.1 of the 2001 revised Treaty give Bajans and David Thompson the right to protect & preserve Barbados from any and all economic and social (and other) hardships that maybe a result of this immigration influx?
livinginbarbados // June 16, 2009 at 1:34 PM
@David
For those interested, I wanted to post Lindsay Holder’s article and also Peter Wickham’s pieces, but neither was available online (Advocate archives only that day’s paper online, and at last check the Wickham article still was not online). If you have managed to find a link, I’d be grateful if you could point me/us to it.
livinginbarbados // June 16, 2009 at 1:47 PM
@Adrian and David
First, I am not going to get into a debate about how you can think outside the box that your life has built. That is existentialism, and I’ll leave it to Jean-Paul Sartre.
George’s work was sent to me by someone else, and I sought the author’s permission to post it. I have no idea if he was aware of my blog, but it’s his work to do with as he chooses. I also suggested that he seek a wider airing by approaching BU, BFP and the papers. He clearly did that, and might have done so without my suggestion. He now has to deal with these various forums. I guess, I due course, he will respond. He may want to reflect on the collective wisdom. That is also quite sensibible.
I have a variety of pieces sent to me to review on a range of subjects and I will be deciding on posting them later today.
I’m not sure where Adrian gets this ‘view’ of his about academics not discussing with lay people. I ’slug it out’ because I was taught by academics to defend my positions.
I will say again, however, do not make slighting personal remarks. I have a brain nurtured in the Caribbean and honed in the English system. If as a result of that I speak a certain way, what of it. If I were to write and speak in French or Russian would that make you feel better? Stop besmirching people, tending to let the discussions degenerate. Let’s deal with the substsance.
livinginbarbados // June 16, 2009 at 1:52 PM
@Hopi
No disagreement on what soveriegn governments can do. But, as I said before, the application of “right to protect & preserve Barbados from any and all economic and social (and other) hardships that maybe a result of this immigration influx” needs to be across the board. So, I look forward to hearing of, and seeing the consequences for, those enterprises, etc. who have been benefitting from the use of illegals.
Mash up &buy back // June 16, 2009 at 2:09 PM
David
Did you hear lindsay holder on down to brasstacks just now.
Man he lick up foolish george brathwaite.
Another haffa idiot called in and talking about educating the masses and investigating before you change to a policy of managed migration.
Man some of these people too like to talk rubbish.
I wish linsday holder will be invited on brasstacks again,perhaps on a sunday.
Heard david ellis too yesterday,but he did not come across as being genuine at all.
Up to last month he was singing a different tune.
David // June 16, 2009 at 2:21 PM
Yes we did some of it.
Where has he been in all the debate so far?
Mash up &buy back // June 16, 2009 at 2:34 PM
I don’t think any body – neither in government,nor in the media,nor the opposition politicians – believed that bajans would still be passionately discussing this immigration issue going on 3 years.
I tell you owen arthur and the blp will never be forgiven,nor will VOB and the Nation newspaper.
livinginbarbados // June 16, 2009 at 2:55 PM
@Hopi
I read very carefully. My remarks referred to my ’singlehandedly’…being a bit crazy (not to say a bit arrogant, too–I’m no Messiah).
Pity you think the reasons for the economic problems are not real. I would love to hear your view on the causes.
What do I do? After decades of trying to help other countries, I now enjoy time thinking about just raising my family, writing, occasionally teaching graduate studies to businessmen and government officials in the region. I also occasionally coach local children in Barbados soccer and tennis (for free). I basically, do things I want to. :-)
Negroman // June 16, 2009 at 3:10 PM
When the Prime Minister indicated that he was prepared to offer amnesty to illegal Caribbean nationals,the cut off period he was considering was 2005.After a perusal of the immigration records for that period,it was decided that to extend amnesty from that period of time would have caused serious problems for Barbados and the amnesty will have little impact on the illegal immigration problem we are now encountering.The vast majority of illegal Caribbean immigrants came into Barbados during that period of time.
The crux of the matter lies with the number of illegals and the implications for the peace,tranquility & cohesive society that Barbados was able to established in the post 1937 era.The White people in Barbados understand the need to free up some of the resources of this land so that the standard of life those White bastards have in Barbados could be maintained.They understand the wrath of Black Barbadians and the threat it poses to their lifestyle.
This government was cognizant of the fact that expanding the amnesty to allow many non-black Caribbean people from Guyana especially to receive status in Barbados would have had some serious social implications for the island.I know for a fact and take it from Negroman that the contributions of many bloggers were taken into consideration when the new immigration policy was in its drafting stage.
The social issues that are affecting Guyana,Trinidad & Tobago,Fiji,Mauritius & other countries where there is a a large influx of Indians were taken into consideration when drafting of the new immigration policy took place.
The shifting demographics of Barbados were the primary focus in this new immigration policy.We Balck People in Barbados could tolerate and live with the few White bastards, the few rat catcher/mango seller Indians & Pakistani and I lump all those people from that region under that heading including the Syrians,Palestinians & the few Arabs we have in Barbados.We definitely are going to put a lid on the few Chinese in Barbados.Those other ethnic groups will never build up a large enough population in Black Barbados to threaten the status & progress that we Blacks have achieve in this island.
This new immigration policy is a step in the direction to preserve the demographics of Black Barbados.
Bharat Jagdeo,musty Norman Faria,funny man Peter Wickham,funny lady Mia Mottley,perverted Ralph Gonsalves,the idiot George Brathwaite and the rest will not derail this government intentions of limiting the amount of Indo-Guyanese miscreants in Black Barbados..
Breaking news Charles Grant the nation photographer is alleged to have sexually molested a four (4) year old child.
WELL,WELL,WELL .
Anonymous // June 16, 2009 at 3:18 PM
Roy Morris and now he! I hope this is not true!
livinginbarbados // June 16, 2009 at 3:39 PM
@David
As I mentioned, the Advocate online is only archived for 24 hours, so the link you have in this story brings up today’s (Tuesday) paper. For furture reference, what works is to download the relevant page(s) as PDFs and then save and link to those. You may recall The Advocate explaining this policy some weeks ago as a safeguard against possible libel suits.
David // June 16, 2009 at 3:42 PM
@LIB
See the BU library. We will update the blog link. Thanks for the feedback!
Adrian Hinds // June 16, 2009 at 4:27 PM
@LIB
I made my statement about Academics and then used you actions here as contrary to that view. You should be thanking me. I have always admired the various british acsents, even yours, and would listen to them for hours at a time, and the benefit I derived from them spans the spectrum of adoration to fits of laughter. lol! Please don’t talk to me about besmirching people, something you seem to have taken great pleasure in doing, unless you don’t see Bajans as people.
I am transcribing the jpeg files of Lindsay Holder’s speech I will make them available to all. I am sure Lindsay would not mind since he said that bajans owe it to themselves to protect our interest.
The advocate files are downloaded as jpegs not pdfs or did i miss something?
Ready-Done // June 16, 2009 at 4:54 PM
jpegs can be converted to pdf (if you dident know)
http://www.freedownloadscenter.com/Business/MS_Office_Add-ins/JPG_to_PDF_Converter.html
Ruel Daniels // June 16, 2009 at 5:17 PM
Guyana is 83000 square miles. Its population occupy less than 10% of theland space. The name Guyana mean “Land of Many Waters”. That is in relation to the massive sweet water rivers and streams that run through the rain forest. But Guyanese in the capital, less than 25 miles from the flow of the nearest mass of sweet water, do not see water running through their taps.
Anything you put in the ground in Guyana grows and grows. There are very few things that many nations yearn for, that is not in Guyana.
What puzzles me is the kind of dum dum reasoning that comes out of the mouths of those who heap criticism on Barbados for trying to keep the little it has, but ignore the indictable incompetence and corruption of Jagdeo and his regime for their inability to keep Guyanese home and satisfied on the plenty they have. That is why black people spent centuries in slavery. Because whenever brothers began to agitate for freedom, the house slaves would turn to them and lambaste them for being ungrateful.
Enuff // June 16, 2009 at 6:03 PM
To BU, why do you allow such behaviour from Negroman?
Anonymous // June 16, 2009 at 6:45 PM
Get off negroman’s back.
He is free like everyone else to make his point.
If you don’t like his style,there is always BFP.
livinginbarbados // June 16, 2009 at 7:04 PM
@Adrian
I understood that you were not including me amongst the ‘academics’, but the view of them was still bewildering to me.
I now feel fortified about my accent; the irony had escaped me.
Being critical of people or things that are not up to the mark is not besmirching, and is very much in keeping with most of the BU threads, nationalities notwithstanding.
Adrian Hinds // June 16, 2009 at 7:22 PM
@LIB:
Just so you know. You and I can never friends of any sort or kind. I do not forgive or forget other islanders when they seek to pull down bajans unprovoked. You made your comments on your blog, and no bajan is given the chance to respond, but that is your right. I will let my hammer fall your way whenever, and however I see fit. Not all bajans can be ridden roughshod over, and some of us can be as vindictive as any other islander.
Adrian Hinds // June 16, 2009 at 7:29 PM
@David:
I don’t think it is misplace to say that we must keep our ear and eyes open. There is a lot at stake here. A lot of people’s fortunes are dependent on this silly march to allowing free movement to people who practice “apanjaat” and it is not unusual to think that persons who object as elequently as Linsay may be place in harms way. It is for this reason that I also join with you in holding aloft the yellow blue flag and rally and let him know that we are rallying around our Prime Minister.
JC // June 16, 2009 at 7:29 PM
Thanks AH!
Anonymous // June 16, 2009 at 7:38 PM
This situation is a little confusing to me as it relates to the skills certificate.Do teachers fall under the 8 categories?
On the other hand it shows that the Antiguan immigration and judicial authorities are no bleeding hearts and they are serious about managing their population.
livinginbarbados // June 16, 2009 at 7:55 PM
@Adrian
I never asked for friendship. Again, a straw man.
Why do you want to give people the impression that no Bajans are allowed to comment on my blog? Since when have you been privy to its administration? I have one restriction regarding comments, which is clearly stated, and that is I do not accept anonymous comments, and if comments include profanities, I take the editorial liberty to delete that. Anyone can comment as they wish, and I presume they do. I have no idea what nationality a person is from the comments offered. The same applies to this blog.
While not so apparent in other comments, a cause cannot be progressed by wilful misrepresentation.
Jay // June 16, 2009 at 9:24 PM
@Anonymous,Some parts of the article are missing & it showcases that depending on the country one cannot just so easily receive a CSME certificate.It depends on the Caricom country in question as all the Caricom countries have not agreed to all aspects of CSME & only certain aspects.It also seems each country has its own interpretation of CSME.
The one advantage that Barbados has over Antigua in getting rid of illegal immigrants however is that they cannot access the courts in order to delay their deportation,hence why it is easier for Barbados to deport anyone.The only thing that an illegal immigrant can do is appeal to an immigration officer or the Chief immigration officer as a final decision as only Permanent residents & Citizens can access the courts to appeal any immigration decision.In Antigua however,it seems even illegal immigrants can access the courts which can be used as a delay tactic.
———————————–
http://www.antiguasunonline.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=247889:mother-of-twins-deported-to-guyana&catid=57:local&Itemid=54
“He said she went to the Labour Department under the scheme established by Caribbean governments where she was told to go to the Immigration Department. According to Benjamin, Paul-Hodge was granted a five-month extension while her children were granted a month a piece while she processed their school papers. She eventually received one year extension for both girls.
Paul-Hodge applied to the Ministry of Education and to other schools for a teaching job since she has been teaching for 10 years. He has five CXC subjects and a teacher training certificate from the Teacher Training College in Guyana.
Benjamin admitted, though, that for her to obtain employment under the programme, the position must first be advertised and if no qualified Antiguan has applied to fill the vacancy, she is likely to get the job. The attorney called the immigration officers deceitful for bringing the woman to court since she told them she wanted to leave the country voluntarily. He said the officers declined to accept her offer and instead told her they would charge her and take her before the court to be deported.
Tamika Camacho, who prosecuted the matter, reminded the court that Antigua and Barbuda has not signed the agreement for the free movement of teachers and nurses. Camacho also told the court that the Guyanese woman was working as a security guard knowing that she had no status in the country.”
Mike Ashby // June 16, 2009 at 9:29 PM
“A government is entitled to implement strong policies. These policies, however, must be applied consistently, fairly and humanely,” this is a statement attributed to Mia Motley’s in the Nation Newspaper on Sunday. She is further quoted as saying, “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.”
I am in complete agreement with the first part of her statement. However, the second part of her statement seems implies that the Barbados government is guilty of doing something untoward. I would like to remind her that if there is blame to go around it is her and other members of her administration that must take the lion share. One thing remains factual, Barbados NEEDS an immigration policy.
However, this whole discourse has only shown how wholly incompetent and inept the Barbados leadership has been over the last two decades. No one in Barbados can say with any surety what kind of numbers we are talking about. We have to rely on the conjecture of Norman Faria, Bharrat Jagdeo and Ralph Gonsalves to tell us what is going on in our country. If this situation is not resolved by the current leadership, NO ONE FROM THE FORMER BLP or THIS CURRENT DLP administration should given the opportunity to represent Bajans again. This is truly an embarrassment.
I would doubt that anyone can tell me the current population on the island, how ignorant then to speak to the demands on social services.
JC // June 16, 2009 at 10:02 PM
Mike Ashby you feel that they dont know . A littel birdie tells me that they have an idea about how many are here!
Read negro man’s comments you think that the leaders of this country dont know what they are up against! Please!
Hopi // June 16, 2009 at 10:07 PM
@LIB………..Ya pushing it with this Messianic talk!
“Pity you think the reasons for the economic problems are not real.” As an indoctrinated mind you too spew forth the same establishment crap that all the others of your ilk are too dumb to see. There is ONE & only ONE cause for this downturn in the world economies and that is the CONTRACTION of visible & invisible money/credit/from the market which resulted in the domino effect that you mentioned. That’s it and I am no trained economist. Why you can’t see that?
BTW, remember that issue we had with your ‘friends’ the Feds well they are now trying to pass a bill to have the
bastards audited.
For decades you ‘tried’ to help other countries. Why weren’t you effective?
And why did you choose Barbados as opposed to your home Jamaica. Do you love Barbados? Do you feel any loyalty or patriotic duty to Barbados? Would you lay down your life for Barbados should the occasion arise?
Bush Tea // June 16, 2009 at 10:52 PM
@Hopi
You know why I like you and Adrian? …no matter where you live, wanna navel strings buried bout here. Wanna clearly love Barbados and passionate about its future.
Bush Tea is always intrigued by people like LIB who choose to come here; abandon the country of their birth, and proceed to tell us how we should run Barbados.
One would think that their advice and expertise would be directed at improving the lot of their own countries…. but no – they turn their backs on home and family, and offer their talents to us instead.
This place must be real special or something.
Wuh even if Bush Tea lived in Antarctica, all I would care about is how Bim is doing and how I could help. …and when it comes to Antarctican politics and policies, Bush Tea would hush he mouth and let the ‘Antarcticans’ handle their own business…
…but not ’bout here!
Every Tom Dick and Harry -from all sort of ‘brek down’ places -insists on coming here to tell us how we should do things….. and the joke is that we does listen to them!!! How you think we likely to end up? Greeks bearing gifts…
You hear what Mia saying now? “…that we better be nice to illegal immigrants otherwise outside people will be upset with us….” well la de la
It seems unfair to me that we should take away LIB from Jamaica where he is so much needed!
…and if we keep all those hard working Guyanese here, who will build up GT? Should we be so selfish?
After they have had 6 months to see how a small country can work, should they not return home focused on taking the lessons learned to their family and friends????
Bush Tea does just smile to myself. Cause I done know just when they will all return ‘home’.
….. when Bim is so brek down, that their real homes become attractive again!
There are ‘patriots’ and there are ‘opportunist’…… let us not get too tied up…
J // June 16, 2009 at 11:57 PM
Negroman wrote:
“This government was cognizant of the fact that expanding the amnesty to allow many non-black Caribbean people from Guyana especially to receive status in Barbados would have had some serious social implications for the island.(My comment is Negroman saying then that the Barbados government immigration policy is motivated by racism?)I know for a fact (My comment: Is Negroman telling us that he is privy to Cabinet discussions?) and take it from Negroman that the contributions of many bloggers were taken into consideration when the new immigration policy was in its drafting”
J // June 17, 2009 at 12:07 AM
If as the Scout says there are 70,000 illegal immigrants in Barbados and since there are only 150 working days between June 1st and December 31st, and if all 70.00 illegal immigrants turn themselves in to Immigration does everybody understand that the Immigration Department will have to process 467 applications per day EVERY DAY until December 31st.
My questions:
1. Does the Immigration Department have the staff to process 467 applications each day and still carry out its regular duties?
2. And if we are to deport these illegal immigrants do we have the airlift to do so? Between LIAT and Caribbean Airways are there 467 empty seats available everyday from now until December 31?
Final question: Did the government think this through?
David // June 17, 2009 at 1:23 AM
Is it not strange that all the VOB moderators with the possible exception of Pat Hoyos and Wendell Callender have jumped on the immigration bandwagon? Could it be that the Starcom management has instituted a policy change on this matter? Seems strange indeed when a few months ago at the smallest mention of the word immigration listeners eardrums had to suffer dead air when the producer went to work.
Enuff // June 17, 2009 at 1:50 AM
@ J
Scout is clueless!!
He dismissed your 11+ theory, but posits a ‘windscreen survey’ based argument that implies that the number of illegal immigrants seen on buses, working as maids, on construction sites and in agriculture, and hanging out in town justifies the belief that there are 60 – 70,000 illegal immigrants in B’dos.
Firstly, a foreign accent does not mean an illegal immigrant, unless you, Scout, are authorised by the Immigration Department to do spot checks for immigrant status.
Secondly, the persons seen on the buses are the same ones heading to work in the stores in town, on the construction sites, as maids and in agriculture. So you are more than likely counting the same person more than once.
Thirdly, it is a fact that immigrants (illegal or legal) whether in B’town, London, New York or Toronto are the main users of public transportation and for obvious reasons.
Your theory however does raise some pertinent questions:
Since there are so many on Transport Board buses, are they major contributors to the Board’s cash intake?
If the illegal immigrants are truly out numbering the Bajans in town on Saturdays is it reasonable to conclude that they may also be spending more in these stores? Do they pay VAT?
What/where are are these 60 – 70,000 illegals living? Are they living free of cost or paying rents to Bajans?
How many of the 60 – 70,000 illegal immigrants actually qualify to remain?
Despite their opposition to illegal immigration, the majority of posters here still support the government’s plan which in essence rewards illegal immigrants, which tells me that this issue is supported based purely on political alliance.
Mass support does not mean a policy is right or good. Need I mention the Reich.
Anonymous // June 17, 2009 at 5:39 AM
All those Bajans living in USA or Canada or Britain or wherever should shut their damn mouts about whatever is happening in those countries because they ain\’t from bout dey. At least according to Bush Tea.
Anonymous // June 17, 2009 at 5:53 AM
Bush tea admires people dat run AWAY from Barbados as people that \”clearly love Barbados and passionate about its future\” because they run dey mouts pun a blog but people who run TO Barbados don\’t care about Barbados.
The Scout // June 17, 2009 at 6:00 AM
Enuff/J
The clean-up campaign has started, within a few weeks, my government would outlaw the rental of rooms, as has been the pattern in Barbados over the last 10 years or so. Therefore, this is the first step at routing the parasites out of their holes. Next, my government will move to charge anyone who employs illegals or who harbour illegals in any way. The penalty for this would be steep. There is more to come as the screws tighten. In the mean time if your documents are good, we welcome you into Barbados with open arms as we have been doing for many many years. Barbados will not become the dumping ground for refugees in the region.
David // June 17, 2009 at 6:14 AM
Do not divert the discussion on this BT issue because that\’s not the point we are understanding him to make.
livinginbarbados // June 17, 2009 at 6:29 AM
@Hopi
The contraction of credit (and cash money/visible money has not declined) is a consequence not a cause. It reverses bad decisions, namely lending to those who have who have borderline or bad credit ratings and should not have borrowed in the first place, and are clearly less likely to re-obtain credit even with inflated rates of interest.
\”For decades you ‘tried’ to help other countries. Why weren’t you effective? [WHO SAID I WAS INEFFECTIVE? BUT SUCCESS IS NOT GUARANTEED FOREVER.]
And why did you choose Barbados as opposed to your home Jamaica. [I WAS INVITED AND ACCEPTED AND FOR THE SAKE OF FAMILY UNITY, I RESIGNED MY JOB] Do you love Barbados? [AFTER 2 YEARS, I REALLY LIKE THE PLACE AND ENCOURAGE VISITORS ALL THE TIME] Do you feel any loyalty or patriotic duty to Barbados? [TRICKY: I\'M NOT A BARBADIAN CITIZEN AND MY PASSPORTS FORBID ME TO SWEAR ALLEGIANCE TO OTHER COUNTRIES] Would you lay down your life for Barbados should the occasion arise? [DIFFICULT HYPOTHETICAL, THOUGH I WOULD SAY I WOULD DEFEND THE GROUND ON WHICH I STAND IF IT OR I WERE THREATENED.]
livinginbarbados // June 17, 2009 at 6:39 AM
Dennis Johnson can respond to that better. But what I have heard is more discussion of the topic on air, and that\’s not surprising not least because of a change of government policy.
But put another way, should a commercial station not be capable of moving with opinions or even seeing where its bottom line bread is buttered?
David // June 17, 2009 at 6:49 AM
@LIB
Are we understanding you to say that a practicing Fourth Estate can be effective when carrying out its core purpose to report and inform based solely on a commercial model?
The Scout // June 17, 2009 at 6:55 AM
David 17th june @ 6.14 a.m
Were you referring to my comments? Well if you were, let me apologise for the divertion but I certainly don\’t apologise for the remarks. Simply put, WE HAVE STARTED THE CLEAN UP OF ALL THESE UNWANTED IN BARBADOS. If Mia & Co don\’t like it too bad but we stand ready to defend the sovereignty and security of Barbados
Rumplestilskin // June 17, 2009 at 6:56 AM
Things are about to get somewhat rougher internationally. Watch the markets.
The Government need to put additional measures in place to ease things for those laid off.
The budget came and went. There was a suggestion on these blogs, that all final pay packages and layoff packages, in full, be tax exempt, at least for the coming year.
Not dealt with. We KNOW that representatives of both the Government and Opposition read these blogs.
These \’ease\’ measures are crucial to the survival and well being of employees feeling and bout to feel the pinch.
Why were such issues not dealt with, or are we just window dressing?
As I said, time is short, the latter part of this year will be horrid and we need special measures in place.
What say you?
Peace
David // June 17, 2009 at 6:59 AM
No Scout, comments were directed at anonymous.
livinginbarbados // June 17, 2009 at 7:30 AM
@David
Clearly the media can perform its core function whether it is commercial (profit-oriented) or public, but what it gives the public needs to be seen in the context of commercial operations needing to be profitable, and public operations being constrained by the limits put on it by government (both financially and politically). Hope that’s clear.
The Nation editorial today (“Immigration policy deserves support”, see http://www.nationnews.com/comments/editorial/wedn-editorial-june-17-copy-for-web) makes interesting reading when considering your comments on VOB. It reads somewhat like some copy I have seen elsewhere recently.
That said, we have had a discussion about how corporations should be responding to the recession in the context of reported layoffs in Barbados by the OMG set up. Hence my bread and butter remark.
More important to me is that you know that a particular media organ has a stance/bias. Then you know what you are dealing with.
David // June 17, 2009 at 7:46 AM
A member of the BU household almost feinted upon reading the Nation editorial!
livinginbarbados // June 17, 2009 at 8:03 AM
@David,
I look forward to hearing some radio reactions later.
I’m not going to take issue with its arguments, but would like someone to make the logical connection for me between its saying that Barbados is “among the most densely populated in the world” and “the need to ensure employment for Barbadians…a priority”
Anonymous // June 17, 2009 at 8:20 AM
See the story in starbrok news about guyanese being deported.
I get the distinction impression that starbtork newspaper is trying to fan the flames of hostility against barbados and is keeping this issue alive with a column every day.
Anonymous // June 17, 2009 at 8:28 AM
David
you should direct your request to Bush tea. By his “logic”, since there are many Bajans living in other countries this would suggest that Barbados is “brek down”!!!
I also find as a nonsense the charge that the BLP is unpatriotic! One may disagree vehemently with the position of the BLP without resorting to such baseless but emotive sentiment. This last refuge of despots only serves to divert attention from all possible ramifications (real or imagined) of policy decisions.
The Scout // June 17, 2009 at 9:21 AM
Anonymous @8.20 a.m.
I made a comment to that newspaper a few minutes ago and immediately the link developed technical problems. I was just telling a blogger that instead of criticising my government for regularising their immigration, guyanese should be investigating why its citizens are fleeing that country. Guyana, properly governed, should be the one putting policies in place to control migration to that country because of the potential of that country through its natural resources. I think it is time guyanese start calling their government to account for its mishandling of the country. I sympathise with the guyanese people, especially the blacks but Barbados and indeed the other countries in the region cannot allow the guyanese situation to pull them down too. With good management, guyana can rebound but if most of these other countries slip, the fall is going to be hard and long. We here in Barbados have worked too hard to bring this little “big rock” to this stage and it would be folly if we allow parasites to come in a devour our gains through personal greed.
Anonymous // June 17, 2009 at 9:51 AM
Scout the same thing happened to me earlier to when I made a comment about guyanese behaviour.
Anonymous // June 17, 2009 at 9:54 AM
I heard Jagdeo on the radio telling persons that the Sugar industry will collapse if they dont pull together ….. He went on to say that he was willing to defend all Guyanese in this time of need!
All I can say is that Jagdeo is a FAILURE!
Why LIB, J, Anon and company deal with that! Silly nitpicking lot!
Enuff // June 17, 2009 at 10:50 AM
‘…… my government would outlaw the rental of rooms, as has been the pattern in Barbados over the last 10 years or so.’
______________________________
Scout, tell the Bajans who will lose what maybe their only source of income, not me, as I am not in the rental business.
This outlawing includes the rental of ROOMS in Husbands, Wanstead, Oxnards etc to UWI students as well?
The practice of renting rooms is nothing new and is prevalent in metropolitan cities and university towns. It caters to immigrants, guest workers, students etc.
Some of the same users of this site who are immigrants in other people’s countries may have, or knows someone who have, experienced the concept.
The issue is regulating the conditions under which such rooms must be rented, not the elimination.
Hopi // June 17, 2009 at 3:51 PM
@Bush Tea…….You my cerebral brother, has been blessed with an overdose of basic commonsense which is a deficiency among the economists & other phdicks. You along with that patriot Negroman and all the others continue to fight the good fight until I get back there. I give my support to the economy in another way.
The Scout // June 17, 2009 at 4:08 PM
Enuff
Everything is not about dollars /gain. It is also about being healthy and security. Imagine a simple wooden 3 bedroom house being sub-divided into 6 bedrooms with people vertually sleeping head and tail on a 3′6″ bed. In some cases 20 and over persons living in a house designed for 6 persons. This is a fire or a catastrophy about to happen
Hopi // June 17, 2009 at 4:12 PM
@Anonymous………..There are too damn many people/invaders/interlopers in Barbados who are just natty for the opportunity and because they are running from ’shitty’ governance. They find a ‘bed well made’ and they don’t give a damn how it was made, they just want to lay in it. Ya crazy! Rout them out! Ya’ll tek Bajans for granted that why the shit got out of hand. Bajans need to wise up and stop giving aid and comfort to the enemy. And FYI, I have children and they have already insisted that they too, want land in Barbados and they are so entitled to it because their parents, gand-parents and foreparents toiled and tilled that soil. So they have more claim to that inheritance than these clanish parasites.
@@LIB……..”The contraction of credit (and cash money/visible money has not declined) is a consequence not a cause. It reverses bad decisions, namely lending to those who have who have borderline or bad credit ratings and should not have borrowed in the first place, and are clearly less likely to re-obtain credit even with inflated rates of interest.”
If you are truly teaching this hogwash at the graduate level, you are part of the problem. It is so easy to blame this problem on the ‘little’ people when the real blood-suckers are just draining the life-blood out of the economy. The contraction of money (both visible and invisible) is the CAUSE of this financial bloodbath today. Nothing else. I hope that the GOB is not paying you a fat cat salary to disinform and mislead.
livinginbarbados // June 17, 2009 at 4:24 PM
@Hopi
You have a particular mindset. I did not mention little people (most of whom do not borrow), and often it is not small borrowers who bring down down lenders. If a financial institutions lends to someone who cannot really repay (or put another way, makes a dud investment), that’s a bad decision and the financial institution will suffer for it and all such decisions. That applies if you are Joe Blow or if you are Russia, or CL Financial.
livinginbarbados // June 17, 2009 at 4:50 PM
@Hope
“I hope that the GOB is not paying you a fat cat salary to disinform and mislead.”
Sorry to disappoint, but I work for no one and for no pay.
ROK // June 17, 2009 at 6:04 PM
@Enuff,
“Scout, tell the Bajans who will lose what maybe their only source of income, not me, as I am not in the rental business. ”
Sorry, but I think you have to make up your mind on the immigration issue. If there are too many Guyanese here, then something has to give. To allow people to pack Guyanese like sardines in houses so they can get the most for the houses without having to repair them etc. is to encourage slavery and human trafficking, but worse of all it is to encourage the existence of substandard housing in Barbados, which we have spent the last 20 years trying to eradicate.
I am sure that up to this week in the news, we heard of how UDC and RDC are embarking on the construction of houses to ease the housing situation in Barbados. Does it makes sense to be doing this and in another breath allowing new cases to spring up?
You see, a lot of the people now renting rooms in houses will probably be the same ones, after their guests have worn out their houses, that will seek out the UDC or RDC to repair them, after getting the windfall from the houses that you speak of and not repairing them.
Let them get Bajans to rent from them and help ease the housing situation in Barbados too… but you know what, a Bajan is not going to pay what the Guyanese paying or live under the conditions that a Guyanese would for that money.
This means that the spin off from this activity is less housing for Bajans and more problems for Government. There are some cases where the national good has to take precedence over what I call greed, because it is not need that drives these landlords.
Finally, Tom Adams did it. He brought a law which may very well be still on the statutes books (but relaxed by the Ministry of Finance) which made every Landlord register their rental properties and he controlled them from there. I must say the policy ran into a few law suits which the Government lost, but that is because he tried to go too far with it. You see, it was also designed to give tenants rights and this is where the complication set in, but the point is you have to know how to use the law to regulate.
Ready-Done // June 17, 2009 at 7:43 PM
@ rok i like how you is think
Hopi // June 17, 2009 at 9:05 PM
@LIB…….”You have a particular mindset” Can’t I say the same for you, even though you and I are separated by day and night? And if we all have brains in our heads, I think that we all have particular mindset, albeit, some more indoctrinated to think according to the ‘values’ of the establishment than others.
When the ’shit started to hit the fan’ the first people to blame were ’sub-prime’ borrowers. Isn’t that so? And who are sub-prime borrowers? Who were sold a ‘bill of goods’ only to realise that they paid for ‘pigs in bags?’
And since it is not small borrowers who bring down big lenders (according to you) why place the blame in the ’sub-prime’ area? Who is it that cannot really repay? The ‘big’ guy or the ‘little’ guy?
And to you not working for/paid by anyone, I say God bless Barbados, because that would be money that could go to the pensioners….you know those old people who built up Barbados to a point where you can now go and live big and free.
J’ca has mucho problems too, how are you helping them out?
livinginbarbados // June 18, 2009 at 3:56 AM
@Hopi
I will labour under my illusions. To me (indoctrinated as I am) it was not subprime borrowers who thought they were sold ‘pigs in bags’, but subprime lenders who pretended that they had a ‘bill of goods’ which they passed on to others (seeking to make another buck), who then found they were holding ‘pigs in bags’. Then the party got sloppy.
What I know about how Barbados has developed (which has come to me mainly from old Barbadians here and abroad) is the following. That the country exported a lot of its people over a long period of time (famously to Panama, other Caribbean islands such as The Bahamas, the UK, US and Canada; some of these I have met in those places, and I have not asked them why they have not returned to Barbados and wont speculate other than they have built lives abroad), who mainly did well and sent back a good amount of their income to support their families. The country also imported a lot of labour (mainly from nearby islands such as St. Vincent, but also Jamaica, and from countries like Guyana), to do work that Barbadians ’said’ they needed doing but did not want to do themselves. Put simply, Barbados has not developed simply because Bajans did x or y: there was a lot of interdependence (there I go again with my indoctrination).
As for living big and free, I would like to think that the money I saved when I worked for an employer was meant to give me support then and later in life. I am not sure how I am living free, given that I do not steal the goods and services I consume in Barbados, but pay the prices that are asked, VAT and excises included. Perhaps I should try the ‘free’ route and not pay; I certainly try to consume less because the prices are pretty high and as I consume few public services I wonder if my tax paying is value for money. But, I have to try to be the good citizen, and do the decent thing.
Helping Jamaica? I’ll get into that when BU posts on that subject. Don’t want to abuse more of David’s time here.
livinginbarbados // June 18, 2009 at 4:51 AM
Indoctrinated as I am, I am for law and order and accept that dealing with illegal and legal migration is each country’s sovereign right. Hopi’s remarks about “those old people who built up Barbados” has set my mind rolling. As I know, those old people were not all Barbadians. It’s also the case that older Barbadians got to where they are now by not building themselves up in Barbados, some even found non-Bajan partners in their new foreign homes (some married into my Jamaican family, some married into my wife’s Bahamian family), decided to stay abroad and helped those of their families still in Barbados if they could.
For decades now Barbados has seen the opposite in operation, with migrants coming here.
All of that is to say what? Clearly, the demographics of the country has changed and clearly there are those who do not like that. Being a very small place, those changes can be more easily noticed. But one question I have, is whether there is really an issue about illegal immigration or about immigration generally, and if the latter, its composition.
I know nothing of the make up of immigrants in Barbados, but pose this question. What would be the national reaction if the illegals who DO NOT REGULARISE are mainly Afro- in ethnicity, but those who DO REGULARISE are not (let’s cite Indo- in ethnicity, to make the issue simple)?
In the UK, when immigration issues were boiling in the 1950s-70s, the matter was clear: those who did not look English were the problem, with their different lifestyles, the pressure on wages, etc. No matter that they were mainly legal. As the UK moved into EU integration, the issue became more complicated. Yes, “send the blacks and Indians back” was still a mantra, but it was also clear that many people had issues with ‘undesirable’ foreigners in their midst: undesirable meaning anybody that was not liked. So, European migrants such as Poles, Serbs, Spaniards, Greeks, Lithuanians, and more, have now become the focus of the migration issue.
The UK and Barbados are vastly different, and anwhere else can be substituted, but people’s reactions to immigrants is very similar.
Just food for thought.
Ready-Done // June 18, 2009 at 7:13 AM
Truth is I have a problem with how most indo-Guyanese think and behave.
The ones i know have been raised in a country far different from Barbados in culture and behavior. I don’t have a problem with their culture in fact i like to sample new things from new cultures when i can, as Barbados being such a young state, basically has NO culture.
(+ i love curry)
Fact is that people that have found\made something that’s working don’t just up and leave it, so immigrants will always be people looking for greener pastures. More importantly immigrants will always be people leaving their host countries because it is viewed as undesirable.
What i think is the problem is the average indo-Guyanese behavior gives the impression to the Barbadian (whither, Black, White Chinese or Indian) that the same results archived in their home land will be duplicated on this soil if the indo-Guyanese population becomes large enough.
The Barbadian instinctively and collectively knows that such a small land mass is incapable of handling that type of behavior, it just too small, the rebuilding process would take forever.
Therefore we seek to keep the peace that allows Barbados to focus on important issues, the average Barbadian may appear docile by comparison, but that is what is required in the demographic. Where elese could you find two different political party supporters in a rum shop on election day cussing each other while pouring out the same rum bottle.
The above example is to show the love for country is what drives the Barbadian not the love for who is controlling it, another example that comes to mind is a law passed in Antigua (not sure) that states a government cant be in power of 4 terms, (correct me if i am wrong) With the current mindset in Barbados a government will never get 4 consecutive terms it’s too much power and power corrupts.
Ready-Done // June 18, 2009 at 7:14 AM
LOL well the day after election as rum dont sell on election day
livinginbarbados // June 18, 2009 at 8:08 AM
@Ready-Done
Clear where you stand on Indo-Guyanese. Thanks for that frankness.
I would take issue with “Fact is that people that have found\made something that’s working don’t just up and leave it, so immigrants will always be people looking for greener pastures. More importantly immigrants will always be people leaving their host countries because it is viewed as undesirable.” Look at the Jewish experience, for instance, or that of any group that is targeted and then expelled from a country that they felt was their own. Look also at the experience of those who left Europe to colonize the Americas. Many were forced to leave for reasons that had to do with religious beliefs: my understanding was that they would have preferred to stay put.
Look also at the experience of migration from the Caribbean. Guyana’s history of ethnic division is not common, but let’s start with that, and the way that Afro-Guyanese or Indo-Guyanese have been targeted whenever the other hs had political power.
Most migrants from the Caribbean to the UK, US and Canada went for understandable economic reasons: well-educated, well-experienced workers, job-seeking, but economies that could not support them. The UK and US offered clear demands for labour from the region. Stay and be idle or leave and work? I think most would opt for the decision to leave, and many did so with a view to return home that has been not so easy in the end till nearer retirement age.
When my mother went to England as a nurse, my father also in nursing did not want to leave. But did so a year later to hold the family together. He sacrificed his 20 year old career, and ended up like many, working way below his potential and experience in activities that were available but not ones they would have chosen (public transport workers, factories, etc.).
Many left unvoluntarily, and I mean children such as myself at the time. No discontent with my homeland, but no choice either. Once you are of age, you can try to choose, but then the landscape has changed. In my case, in Jamaica, after graduating from universtiy, I return to Jamaica, but I had no local ‘big man’ to sponsor me, and no political affiliation to play off, so education and work skills or not, I cannot get a job. Options? Stay in UK and make a career there. I have at least myself to feed.
Interesting, perhaps, I had a job offer in Barbados in 1990, which I had to refuse because the cost of moving and salary etc. meant taking a halving of income. What to do? Stay in UK and cater for my family. Right choice? Time will tell.
Twenty years on, back in Barbados, looking on and wondering.
Just offering a personal perpective, and no one need feel inclined to offer any vicious remarks.
David // June 18, 2009 at 8:45 AM
@LIB
Times have changed and it is now a different world.
Don’t think that you will find many Bajans knocking the benefit of migration.
The current debate is about a perception by Barbadians the there has been an unregulated influx of migrants for several years now and especially indo-Guyanese of the unskilled variety. This for many Barbadians to see has led to slumming and squating on the increase among other social sores.
BU would have covered the gamut of this issue in the last two years. On top of it all and confirmed by the AG our MIS at the immigration department leaves a lot to be desired.
Ready-Done // June 18, 2009 at 9:15 AM
@ LIB you said.
Look also at the experience of migration from the Caribbean. Guyana’s history of ethnic division is not common, but let’s start with that, and the way that Afro-Guyanese or Indo-Guyanese have been targeted whenever the other has had political power.
So from the influx of Indo-Guyanese it would be safe to assume Afro-Guyanese in power now.
I also assuming Indo-Guyanese running from Afro-Guyanese to Afro-Barbadians.
What type of feelings are they harboring towards Afro-Barbadians, who just happen to look like Afro-Guyanese? And what feelings does the Afro-Barbadian has towards the novel Indo-Guyanese? and what are the bases these feelings are perpetuated on as we have never had a large resident Indo-Guyanese population?
We can only observe what actions have been in/on other land masses.
Just clearing where i stand on the topic of ethnic division being\not being common place where Indo\Afro-Guyanese are major forces.
Hopi // June 18, 2009 at 9:34 AM
@LIB……You are constantly twisting & trying to spin fact which certainly does not bode well for you a ‘trained economist.’ Now you want me to settle for your opinion….. “to me.” As an economist that’s how you operate?
For starters the ’sub-prime’ lenders did not pretend to have a ‘bill of goods,’ they knew exactly what they were doing. Precisely why they went after that particular grp.
You know that Barbados developed because it exported a lot of its people to other countries and because it imported a lot of other people from the region. Now what happened to those Bajans who stayed in Barbados? Seems like you willfully neglected to mention that it was on their backs, by their blood sweat and tears that Barbados was built. Why give the impression that external forces surpassed the contribution of the native Bajans?
Irregardless of how you try to spin this immigration issue you cannot negate the fact that the land mass of Barbados cannot accommodate these intruders..be they white, chinese, indian or arabs, [hereby rendering your comparison to europe/n.amerika null and void.] It can’t and it should not be forced upon the natives. When whitey, the chinee or anyone come down with their plane load of ‘ill-gotten’ gains, they should never be allowed to purchase and own 1 sq ft of land there. If they want to honestly contribute to the economy fine, then give them a 2/5yr renewable LEASE. And clause that lease with specific revocations. NEVER allow foreigners/interlopers to own Barbados.
When Bajans migrate, they never adopt any clanish behaviour. Anyone can tell you that we are some of the most naive people on this planet who are always ready and willing to assimilate, share and accept others…and sadly that is a part of the problem Barbados is now facing to our detriment.Our kindness has been misunderstood for weakness.
And don’t ever compare Barbados to any ‘jewish’ problem or any other europeans issue. This is a whole other topic.
And at this particular juncture where the economy is in a tailspin Barbados does not need any manage migration. She needs to secure and protect her own. And let the chips fall where they.
Enuff // June 18, 2009 at 9:58 AM
@ The Scout
“Everything is not about dollars /gain. It is also about being healthy and security. Imagine a simple wooden 3 bedroom house being sub-divided into 6 bedrooms with people vertually sleeping head and tail on a 3′6″ bed. In some cases 20 and over persons living in a house designed for 6 persons. This is a fire or a catastrophy about to happen.”
I think my statement was and remains clear:
“The issue is regulating the conditions under which such rooms must be rented, not the elimination.”
It is obvious that if the conditions are regulated or whatever existing legislation (according to RoK) enforced, then the scenarios (over crowding) you mentioned would become less frequent even if not non-existent.
Financial costs both true and perceived, are at the root of the immigration debate.
__________________________________
@ RoK
“To allow people to pack Guyanese like sardines in houses so they can get the most for the houses without having to repair them etc. is to encourage slavery and human trafficking, but worse of all it is to encourage the existence of substandard housing in Barbados, which we have spent the last 20 years trying to eradicate.”
I never promoted the idea of allowing the rental of substandard and over crowded rooms. I argued that rather than disallowing the rental of rooms, the conditions under which rooms are rented should be regulated.
“I am sure that up to this week in the news, we heard of how UDC and RDC are embarking on the construction of houses to ease the housing situation in Barbados. Does it makes sense to be doing this and in another breath allowing new cases to spring up?”
As far as I know both UDC and RDC are in the business of repairing or reconstructing already existing houses. They seldom increase the existing stock, which is the role of the NHC.
“You see, a lot of the people now renting rooms in houses will probably be the same ones, after their guests have worn out their houses, that will seek out the UDC or RDC to repair them, after getting the windfall from the houses that you speak of and not repairing them.”
The Minster only this week outlined criteria for accessing housing assistance from UDC & RDC. You must be a pensioner or disabled (and I assume also financially unable to help yourself) or indigent. I doubt a large number of such persons currently rent rooms to illegal immigrants, and if they do then my point about the economic benefit to some is justified.
However once the rental system is properly regulated and applicants to UDC/RDC similarly assessed, should government then not know whether or not an applicant previously rented rooms in his/her property and if he/she is truly deserving of assistance even if he/she falls into one of the three categories?
Adrian Hinds // June 18, 2009 at 10:05 AM
livinginbarbados // June 18, 2009 at 8:08 am
@Ready-Done
Clear where you stand on Indo-Guyanese. Thanks for that frankness.
————————————————-
Ready-Done you are not alone. Below are the words of the former Richard Allsop, on why he left in 1963
Why I left Guyana Published on: 9/4/05.
by PROFESSOR RICHARD ALLSOPP
GUYANA’S VASTNESS is legendary, but so is the undeveloped Sahara Desert’s.
The size of its mineral wealth, much of which I hear is being clandestinely siphoned off, has to remain imagined.
But it is there, its natural beauty, which fully deserves the word “fantastic” – and the Kaiteur falls for example, is the only thing I have ever seen which is worthy of the description “awesome”.
All this interior beauty, islands, rivers and many waterfalls, are hidden from its population which is largely coastal and which has been reduced by emigration, for one reason or another, from about 850 000 to about 720 000 when the last elections were held.
It used to be called the “Land of Six Peoples”, Amerindians, Europeans, Africans, East Indians, Chinese and Portuguese, these last being considered class-wise, non-Europeans.
That is a piece of social history.
Confrontation
However, when we were six peoples as a colony you can say we were happy people together, but politics, from 1953 to the present, has driven out the Europeans, the Chinese, the Portuguese; and since the Amerindians have always been marginalised, that has left a massive confrontation of the Africs and Indics.
I use the term “Africs” to embrace all descendants and mixtures thereof, of the African Diaspora, and “Indics” to embrace all the descendants of the indentured labourers who came from the Indian subcontinent.
You can’t say “Indian” today because India is a separate country. Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka are all different countries.
So “Indics” embraces them all and from all over the subcontinent, Guyana has had labourers and immigrants of one kind or another, for one reason or another.
More recently in terms of traders.
Let me recall therefore, British Guyana up to 1953 when the People’s Progressive Party (PPP) was first elected to power, the pre-political Guyana, using the term pre-political to describe the era, the age of vibrant politics as we know it today.
Before 1953 politics was of very little public interest.
Cheddi Jagan came back to Guyana about 1949 and I think got his first political seat then.
Forbes Burham came back about the same time, and they both had had contact with the Socialist International in different places, Burnham in England and Jagan in
the United States.
Whatever superior or international powers they were, they obviously put these two men together and they did wonderful things for us all at first.
These were the days of euphoria, when, as from 1950 to 1953, we saw a horizon of beauty and sunrise because everything they said and did seemed so natural and correct to us.
Their meetings were crowded, they had also arranged for hoax meetings, a corner away from the Opposition.
We didn’t realise it at the time, but there were some jokers who were not really serious contestants, who would hold meetings that would cause a lot of laughter and become amusing popular distractions about a corner away from where the other party, the United Democratic Party (UDP) was holding its meeting and really destroyed the attention of the crowds of the UDP; whereas PPP meetings were overcrowded.
Even in the rain, people would turn up with umbrellas listening to the wonderful words of Burnham and Jagan and their followers.
Many of them were professionally qualified, such as Clinton Wong, a young Chinese lawyer, and there were many others whose names I don’t recall, but they were all well educated, very articulate and no jokers at all, and they spoke about issues which would concern us all.
Issues such as fairplay in employment, rights to property, laws that interfered with our liberty, especially labour laws and promised things that we all thought were obviously necessities.
Nothing stood in their way and, in 1953, they won 18 out of 24 seats.
To great popular applause.
But the music that we had been so charmed by in their public platform performances, was too good to stop.
So after entering Parliament (with a great display of marching down to Parliament in white shark-skin suits), they continued to hold public meetings on Saturday nights, or whatever, explaining to the public the difficulties they were having with the governor, the government, the permanent secretaries and all the senior administrative officers, and we were cheering and cheering not realising that they should be getting on with the business of government and managing those people who were giving them difficulties.
Well, we gathered later that Sir Alfred Savage, who was our governor at where black people would readily sell theirs to anybody.
At least that is our experience in Guyana.
Culture also divided the races.
My family lived next to an East Indian family, with whom we were extremely close; and at Christmastime they would send us a pile of beautifully made roti and curry, but we could not reciprocate with our own pepperpot, because they did not eat meat, that
kind of thing.
Although now, the whole country and much of the Western world are going for curry and roti as almost an international dish.
Christians were mostly Africs with very, very few Indics; and the Indics had their own religions – Hinduism and Islam – with temples and mosques, plentifully present in the countryside especially.
We played together, we sang and worked together. The vital fact is that we went to school together. There grew up, later I think, in my life, a set of Indic schools, but generally speaking, all schools run by the Christian church were without any
divisions of race.
All classes were mixed and all races were mixed.
When I say all classes were mixed, I mean that, of course, education was not marked by race and we all grew up admiring, and appreciating the academic merits
of each other.
However, the separatist propensities of the East Indian, almost naturally developed a label “Apanjaat”, meaning “one’s own kind”, which the East Indian grew to understand from their earliest years and did not have to repeat it, which is an important point.
“Apanjaat” became a worry, mainly for the Blacks who had nothing to confront it with and the Africs are naturally given anyway to separation among themselves.
They do not group, or naturally accept or support each other, especially in the matter of shades of skin, something that does not really bother East Indians, or, if it does, not to any significant degree.
So you would not expect, in the era of the 1950s to ’60s, Africs to respond automatically with anything like “vote for black people” or “vote for Blacks alone”.
In fact, the counter movement of Black-Power, flowing in from the United States, was bitterly condemned by many Afric leaders whether in public, private or in the church.
“Apanjaat”, was also denied by some East Indians, but it has continued, in my view, to undermine the whole political scene, the whole socio-political fabric of Guyana, up to this stage.
Politics took hold of the implications of the voting power of this label, or understanding, or misunderstanding of East Indians. For it is more of an understanding than anything that the leaders have said.
The population of Guyana being divided racially with 50 per cent or more of East Indians and the rest mixed, with about 40 per cent actually black or Africs, that’s the problem.
I would call Africs, all mixtures of the Diaspora, but you still have people who speak of themselves, or think of themselves as not African at all, nor would want to hear the word, (same as I think in Barbados, where you don’t have the bother of the demographic Indic confrontation, and you are very lucky there).
Now “Apanjaat” and socio-political attempts to counteract it, by the Guyanese Opposition I must say, have done so much damage over the last 50 or 60 years to Guyana, that unless Guyana can find a leader or, better luck, two leaders of the quality of Nelson Mandela, with a gift for overlooking ills and bringing people together; unless we can find at least one, preferably two, one from each side, we are going to divide that country as I see it.
That country is already emotionally divided in a bad way, and we might have to go politically that way too, if anything is to come of the potentialities of the country.
There is much more that could be said about racism, but I think that
I must leave it there. Against this background, I left Guyana as early as 1963 to live in Barbados!
That was before the debacle which drove so many more away to Barbados and elsewhere.
livinginbarbados // June 18, 2009 at 10:08 AM
@Ready-Done
When I said the division is not common, that was short-hand. Jamaica’s experience of relations between Indo- and Afro- is very different, and part of that I think comes from relative balance. Trinidad’s case is closer to that of Guyana’s but my sense (not experience) is that there has been a similar tension between Afro- and Indo- and some clear political divisions can be seen. But Trinidad’s economic success has allowed them to deal with such tensions differently (and I am not suggesting that things are better).
What I observed in Guyana when I worked there several years ago (during the period that saw transfer from Presidents Hinds (Afro) to Janet Jagan and then Jagdeo, though these were all of the same party) was a complex conflict between Afro- and Indo-Pakistani Guyanese, that had its place in politics, economics and social issues. The movements are also not simple to map in time, as their origins can be some longer time in the past. But, if I can be brief and simplify. Many Afro-Guyanese worked in the public sector and gained status under Afro-Guyanese-led governments of Burnham and Hoyte. When government changed many feared a purge based on political allegiance, and some decided to leave before being pushed, going to a range of places but more the US. In sugar, most of the labour is Indo-Guyanese, and when that sector falters, there tends to be an exodus of those agricultural workers (to other sugar growing places nearby, mainly). I think (but am less sure) that a similar situation applied to mining (gold and bauxite). So there are push factors that are part racial, part political (and racial) and part economic.
What I saw in Guyana and elsewhere is that local racial antagonism does not necessarily translate across borders: it’s a mainly domestic fight. Bajans’ experience of this, however, may be different and I cannot comment. By best analogy is that as a black person in the US I have witnessed different treatment myself than is meted out to black Americans in the same situation: I sound foreign at least. Just my experience.
livinginbarbados // June 18, 2009 at 10:16 AM
@David
“Times have changed and it is now a different world.
Don’t think that you will find many Bajans knocking the benefit of migration.
The current debate is about a perception by Barbadians [that] there has been an unregulated influx of migrants for several years now and especially indo-Guyanese of the unskilled variety.”
Clearly, I cannot disagree that times have changed. However, I do not believe that Barbadians are as neutral as you suggest about migration. Your other Bajan commentators can clarify.
livinginbarbados // June 18, 2009 at 10:21 AM
@Adrian Hinds
Guyana’s misuse of its riches is not unique: there is even a good body of research on the so-called ‘resource curse’ (see http://www.prio.no/CSCW/Events/Event/?oid=20911884, for example). It’s not something unique to a race or region: Brazil, Nigeria, the Persian Gulf countries, much of sub-Saharan Africa, are oft-cited recent examples.
Ready-Done // June 18, 2009 at 10:29 AM
Guyana’s misuse of its riches is not unique, but it is proven.
Ethnic division in Trinidad, Jamaica & Guyana is not unique, but it is proven.
Ethnic division in Barbados is not a problem right now, & we gin keep it so.
Adrian Hinds // June 18, 2009 at 10:30 AM
What I saw in Guyana and elsewhere is that local racial antagonism does not necessarily translate across borders: it’s a mainly domestic fight.
————————————————
What pray tell you mean by the above?
I live and played cricket in North East United states, and I am yet to find a cricket team comprise of guyanese that is both afric and Indic. The samething amongst Trini teams. I hardly see Afro trini’s and Indo trinis together in My neck of the woods.
livinginbarbados // June 18, 2009 at 10:43 AM
@Hopi
Let me let you play banker. Get B$10 from someone and then lend half each to two people, and back the lending with a certificate. You sell the certificates to someone else, saying that the loans are of equal value, and get back your B$10. You’re happy. But one borrower cannot repay, and the person now holding the certificates finds that his ‘asset’ of B$10 is now only worth B$5. What do you do with the liabilities and capital you had to match the B$10?
Those Barbadians who remained behind? Are you suggesting that non-Bajans just loafed around and made no contribution to the island’s development? My understanding is also that Barbados has never had enough financial resources of its own to go forward. That use of foreign resources is not trivial, though perhaps easier to deal with because its money not people. So I cannot understand an argument that suggests the country somehow made it on its own blood, sweat and tears. Perhaps I missed the point.
I wont respond on the experience of Jews: it’s an example cited to meet another commentator’s remarks.
Your view would suggest that the airport and port be closed now and all the foreigners and their foreign exchange that would come in be turned away; likewise, any use of foreign loans needs to be stopped. The country does not need them. It will be interesting to see where the chips fall then.
David // June 18, 2009 at 10:43 AM
@Adrian
You should email that Allsop musing to Peter Wickham. Did you see how he used his tribute to Allsop in his last column to feather his position?
David // June 18, 2009 at 10:54 AM
@LIB
The simple point which Hopi is making is that the vision and the culture and ethos which followed was shaped in the main by Black Barbadians in the post-independence period.
livinginbarbados // June 18, 2009 at 10:55 AM
@Adrian Hinds
“I live and played cricket in North East United states, and I am yet to find a cricket team comprise of guyanese that is both afric and Indic. The samething amongst Trini teams. I hardly see Afro trini’s and Indo trinis together in My neck of the woods.”
Well, I lived in Washington DC, coached and played soccer on a men’s team that had Afro- and Indo-Trinis and Guyanese (plus some Turks and various Latinos).
I’ve also been involved in many soccer tournaments for Caribbean teams in that same area of the US where teams from the region came and played and Afro- and Indo- from various places were on the same team.
What does that tell me? That cricket has a problem that soccer doesn’t? Or that we have had different experiences.
livinginbarbados // June 18, 2009 at 11:20 AM
@David
“The simple point which Hopi is making is that the vision and the culture and ethos which followed was shaped in the main by Black Barbadians in the post-independence period.”
Thank you for trying to clarify.
Hopi // June 18, 2009 at 11:21 AM
@LIB……….Is that $10B computer generated money? Pls explain!
At the onset of that transaction did you verify that both borrowers could in fact hold up their end of the deal and what in borrower #2 situation changed to place him in default?
Regards to para 2, you have missed the point by decades. You are so in denial and damn dishonest that it pains you to even conceive that those Bajans who did not travel built up that little island! Where the hell were you when Bajans were building that island. You think that its development only just started yesterday? You are now beginning to show your true colours, so keep going.
How does my view suggest that the port and airport be closed?
Why don’t you deal with the issues?
livinginbarbados // June 18, 2009 at 11:55 AM
@Hopi
It doesn’t matter what the origin is of the money (which is only a proxy, anyway). You get the point. You lend to people who should not be borrowing as if they were good borrowers. What we have is SUBPRIME (meaning risky) being treated as if they were not. The deals should have gone sour, but the pretence was that the deals would be sweet. Last person holding the loan is the patsy.
Tell the Bajans that did travel over the decades that they had no hand in building Barbados through their financial or material contributions. In more recent times, some of them travelled and returned and have led this country, so I presume have had some hand in its development.
livinginbarbados // June 18, 2009 at 12:13 PM
@Adrian Hinds
Your extract from Professor Allsopp includes a point that I say is at the heart of this discussion: “Culture also divided the races”. I did not know Professor Allsopp, but knew his linguistic works, which I hold in high regard.
One of my contentions is that the issue is not only about illegal migration, which is itself a legitimate concern, but may be more about the presence of a certain group of foreigners. Hence my question earlier, which no one answered (but that’s fine) about how Barbadians would react if all those who regularised their status were Indo-, while those who let theirs lapse were Afro-.
It is very rare for migrant groups to just go and assimilate in another country. While Barbadians might not have sought to set up exclusive areas and clan together, they were much happier settling in areas with other West Indians/English speaking Caribbeans. That soon made areas such as Brixton, Moss Side, and Edgbaston in England places known to have have sizeable Caribbean communities, and a certain momentum built up as new migrants came in. Those areas are now heavily populated by Caribbean peoples. I know the US less well, but have a similar impression regarding places in and around Washington DC, NY City and say South Florida. The host (white) population in those places quickly got uneasy with these black groups in their midst and reacted in various ways, including by leaving.
But the same was true of the English reaction to Chinese, Bangladeshi, Pakistani, Hindi, Sikh communities that developed.
Guyana and Trinidad in this region went a route that included ethnic divisions as a key part of their politics. It’s much easier to divide and rule.
Hopi // June 18, 2009 at 12:19 PM
@LIB………No smoke no mirrors, my dear just answer that question. Is that screen money and what changed borrower #2 position?
It does matter!
Stop skirting the subject…Who is gonna tell Bajans who travelled that they did not contribute? Those are your crystallized thoughts not mine!
JC // June 18, 2009 at 12:26 PM
ROK I see you have another fan! LOL
Adrian Hinds // June 18, 2009 at 12:36 PM
@LIB:
Hence my question earlier, which no one answered (but that’s fine) about how Barbadians would react if all those who regularised their status were Indo-, while those who let theirs lapse were Afro-.
————————————————
I have spoken about this back in 2004.
So do we have the ethnic break down of the 25-30 thousand guyanese in Barbados? Back in Feb both Q and BB made reference to the number of Guyanese indians and Gyanese asian, which i assume where one and the same. This article only address one side of the equation, that of the Afro-guyanese. I believe that if the majority of the 30,000 guyanese where of African decent the hue and cry would not be as loud. There is something inherently disturbing that Barbadians find in Indo-Guyanese and i believe it is the same thing that Indo-guyanese are guilty of in Guyana—- they have a deep deep hate of Black people. The Guyana Indian Heritage Association (GIHA) has rejected an invitation by the Ethnic Relations Commission (ERC) to participate in its ‘Conflict Transformation Training Course’, citing a lack of confidence in the credibility of the ERC. They have some how link the stated goal of seeing Guyana’s six races as one— as a threat to their Indian indentity. The ERC denied making the statement— What they really want is a little India complete with it’s caste system, in South America.
We have never seen this level of complaining against St.Lucians, Vincentians, Indians from india.
It is nonsense to talk about caribbean unity– inclusive of people (indo-guyanese) who see themselves as Indian and nothing else.
http://www.barbadosforum.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=1119&view=findpost&p=11369
These are known facts that caribbean a academics friends have not discuss as loudly as they have been cussing Bajans.
As for Trinidad: What did Ricky Singh means when he said the following?
“The second group, comprising mainly Indo-Trinidadians, see dilution of their political clout in any move towards further integration, and more so in Prime Minister Manning’s initiative towards an undefined political unity with three OECS countries. ”
and
“The second group, comprising mainly Indo-Trinidadians, see dilution of their political clout in any move towards further integration, and more so in Prime Minister Manning’s initiative towards an undefined political unity with three OECS countries. ”
Was Richard Allsopp wrong? then why did we not seek to deal with it instead of the top down approach that was always doomed to fail? Did Ricky Singh now realize these things of his Indo-Trini counterparts? why no real effort to deal with it? WHY MUST BAJANS CHANGES THEY THEY DON’T.
Bajans have shown their willingness to integrate with anyone who shares a common goal. Why no outcry against Indians and only Guyana Indics? Something fuh wunnuh academics to study, rather than cussing us.
http://www.trinidadexpress.com/index.pl/article_opinion?id=161490660
Adrian Hinds // June 18, 2009 at 12:39 PM
Sorry about that:
As for Indo-Trinidadians who see self-preservation as being more important than survival of the Caribbean, they live in as unrealistic a world as their gas-forever counterparts. I fully agree that Guyana and Suriname must be part of any deepening of Caribbean integration. But so must the other islands, however poor in resources they may be.
Don’t the people have a say in any of this?
livinginbarbados // June 18, 2009 at 12:48 PM
@Hopi
On borrower #2, the inability to pay can come from any reason, but let’s use an oft-cited example that the person was loaned an amount too large relative to income. That could reflect an unscrupulous action by the lender (turning a blind eye to established lending criteria) or by the borrower (lack of full disclosure). You can choose.
On the matter of the travelling Bajans, did I misunderstand “You are so in denial and damn dishonest that it pains you to even conceive that those Bajans who did not travel built up that little island! Where the hell were you when Bajans were building that island. You think that its development only just started yesterday?”?
Adrian Hinds // June 18, 2009 at 12:50 PM
David // June 18, 2009 at 10:43 am
@Adrian
You should email that Allsop musing to Peter Wickham. Did you see how he used his tribute to Allsop in his last column to feather his position?
————————————————-
Where would I find that? I have not seen his articles in a while.
Adrian Hinds // June 18, 2009 at 12:55 PM
Hopi you have LIB good. LIB just respond to the Hopi’s scenario without attempting to first change it?
Hopi // June 18, 2009 at 1:11 PM
@LIB……….You are still avoiding the subject of the money.
Wasn’t this same lending criteria established so as to prevent and safeguard against this ‘lack of full disclosure’ by the borrower? And didn’t the borrower get away with this because the lender allowed him? Don’t you see the connection, and who is in control here the borrower or the unscrupulous lender?
On your 2nd para….No you did not misunderstand me. Maybe your own language has got you confused!
David // June 18, 2009 at 1:11 PM
Adrian check under guest columnist.
Hopi // June 18, 2009 at 1:16 PM
@AH……LIB is constantly posting up in hey as a trained economist and I’m just trying to get him to answer a simple question based on the facts that are out there, that he should sift thru [which shouldn't be difficult for his 'trained eye'] but he is constantly avoiding that question and leading me on some wild goose chase which I’m too happy to follow! Talk about bait and switch!
livinginbarbados // June 18, 2009 at 1:19 PM
@Hopi
What do you call “screen” money or “computer generated” money? Happy to deal once I understand.
Criteria, like all rules, only work if they are followed. (Isn’t that part of the illegal immigrants mess?) I have seen enough examples (in personal or national finances) of clear criteria and less than full disclosure by borrowers or complicity by a lender. But, when the matter of the real financial situation comes along the horse has often left the stable, and the field and maybe even the country. So, what the lender is left holding is still worthless.
Adrian Hinds // June 18, 2009 at 1:22 PM
Hopi uh post 1960 economist tell take the mouthings of pre 1960 economist with a grain uh salt. Little does he know that when economists speak i does take de salt regardless. When we were trying to understand the whole mess we called on LIB and I don’t think rose to the chellenge. Remember there were as many economists for as against Obama’s economic policies.
livinginbarbados // June 18, 2009 at 1:27 PM
@Hopi and Adrian Hinds
Lest you feel neglected, I must away and deal with some real legal immigration matters at the airport.
Adrian Hinds // June 18, 2009 at 1:41 PM
PEOPLE & THINGS: Farewell, Prof.
Published on: 6/17/2009.
by PETER WICKHAM
ALTHOUGH I AM ANXIOUS to persist with and conclude the promised three-part series on immigration, it is necessary at this time to pause momentarily for reflection on the life and contribution of a great son of the Caribbean, whose life experience epitomises the type of “cross fertilisation” that the previous two articles addressed.
It is either ironic or divine providence that this series of articles which attempts to convince the Barbadian public of the benefits of migration, especially as it relates to migrants from Guyana, would be interrupted by a tribute to one of Guyana’s finest sons, who later made his home in Barbados.
I refer of course to the late Professor S.R. Richard Allsopp retired professor of Caribbean lexicography, who was laid to rest last Friday at the age of 86.
————————————————–
Prof Allsopp convince Barbadians otherwise Peter. Prof Allsopp did not come to us as a result of caribbean intigration, he came as a result of the Indo guyanese “APANJAAT” ones own kind mentaltiy. Now they are following him, and we can’t even seek his advise as to where we can go. Are to face a situation where some of us will have to write as Allsopp did “Why we left Barbados” no way we should let this happen.
Hopi // June 18, 2009 at 1:48 PM
@AH………And Obama is getting ready to turn over full financial regulatory control to the Feds. Talk about the Messiah has come!
@LIB……The only reason for this less than full disclosure by the borrower is because of the cooperation of the unscrupulous, duplicitous lender. Just like the long-whiskered billygoats who has ‘plagued’ Barbados with intruders today.
You have absolutely no idea what I’m talking about when i say screen/computer generated money? You the economist?
Hopi // June 18, 2009 at 1:51 PM
@AH…..Do you really believe LIB? Sweet Jesus!
Adrian Hinds // June 18, 2009 at 4:21 PM
Hopi // June 18, 2009 at 1:51 pm
@AH…..Do you really believe LIB? Sweet Jesus!
————————————————
ha ha ha ha An economist running to the airport to deal with immigration matters. Wuh you thing Hopi? I may be childish but I ain’t stupid. I think de licks you throwing in he a2s are bit to hot. I love nothing more than to see an economist made to consult his books to respond to lay people. ha ha ha ha
we can defeat this conspiracy, yes we can.
livinginbarbados // June 18, 2009 at 5:07 PM
@Hopi
Still waiting for a definition of your terms so that we can discuss on the same basis. If you don’t have it, then so be it.
Hopi // June 18, 2009 at 6:00 PM
@AH……..On this one, my thoughts are your thoughts!
@LIB……..Wow! I didn’t think that you’d be back so soon from de ‘airport.’ You ran outta hey like a bat outta hell, I’d swear that they had your chile in de holding pen at customs. Beside being a certified economist are you also a certified immigration councillor as well? Anyhow, I hope that ya got de issue resolved and that ya are not aiding and comforting the 71stK illegal immigrant. Just remember that you are a ‘patriotic’ Bajan now! Right?
As for the definition, I will no longer beat around the bush with you, since [according to Adrian] ya went and consulted ya books. Computer screen generated money is the opposite of cold, hard cash. Is that good enough for you, trained economist? Chew on that till I get back!
Adrian Hinds // June 18, 2009 at 11:01 PM
Now Hopi please be fair. There is no reason for the low blow you inflicted on LIB, you are holding your own without having to be mean. So stop calling LIB names, he could never be a patriotic Bajan. ha ha ha ha ha
livinginbarbados // June 19, 2009 at 4:44 AM
@Hopi
Whether the money is cash (notes and coins) or what you call “screen” money (let’s call it credit or book entry or anything else, other than cash; and it is not an opposite, but a complement to cash), it’s not really different to the person who has it. It can be used to buy (in exchange for) goods and services. Cash is limited in terms of where you can use/carry it, and people usually face limits on the volume they can carry, but even with rapid inflation you can find ways to move around a lot of cash.
If you want to make a distinction between the forms of cash (‘fiat’, created by banks/central banks and supposedly usuable for transactions, but not necessarily backed by anything; or ‘commodity’, ie backed by something like gold), feel free, but the only substantive difference is how much money you can have in circulation.
mash up & buy back // June 19, 2009 at 6:53 AM
Could living in barbados and hopi please stopp filling up this thread with unrelated topics.
LIB would not accept this happening on his blog,and to you Hopi you always seek to turn any thread in a one track discussion.
For goodness sake for we who are taking this immigration matter seriously.please keep the topic to the subject so that any ministers or persons in the government who has influence, coming to read our comments will not be turned off by the asides.
Enough man.
EyeSpy // June 19, 2009 at 7:17 AM
mash up & buy back // June 19, 2009 at 6:53 am
“please keep the topic to the subject so that any ministers or persons in the government who has influence, coming to read our comments will not be turned off by the asides.”
—————————————————————————-
Absolutely. This is a topic that should be taken seriously. It could surely be a turnoff to many when they start to read frivolous comments that have no relevance to the subject. I hope commenters would take heed.
livinginbarbados // June 19, 2009 at 7:18 AM
@mash up & buy back
Glad to do that, and hope that Hopi then does not use that to go off and say that his/her issues are not being addressed discussed.
Not withstanding that, the asides do not indicate that the core discussion is not being taken seriously.
David // June 19, 2009 at 7:36 AM
There is a solution LIB and Hopi.
A few blogs down there a blog titled ‘Maintaining a Stable Currency in a Small Open Economy’
livinginbarbados // June 19, 2009 at 7:42 AM
@David
To me, that’s not necessary. I responded to a set of questions and the jibes about people ducking issues (even if they are not pertinent to a particular discussion) are a bit tiresome, so that tends to lead to a response, not least as a matter of courtesy.
That said, you have a job on as many discussions get ‘cross threaded’.
livinginbarbados // June 19, 2009 at 7:47 AM
Food for thought is a discussion at the end of yesterday’s Brass Tacks (Tony Marshall), where a caller argued that Lindsay Holder’s argument that if Barbados had an ‘organized labour’ scheme as exists in say Canada and The US for agricultural labour, the illegal immigrant problem would be removed. Tony disagreed with this. But the caller argued that for areas like construction and agriculture, where demand for labour could perhaps be seen ahead of time and requests for foreign workers made, there are other areas where workers are demanded and locals are not willing/available. I tend to agree with that caller, not least for jobs like domestic services, and of course anything illicit. But the case is also valid in areas like construction and agriculture, if the employers do not want to comply with any official requests for indication of job needs.
David // June 19, 2009 at 7:53 AM
A register was put forward by Sir Roy of the BWU during the last administration and was rejected. Adrian would have introduced it to this discussion as well. Any system is better than none. A registration system is used by Trinidad in the construction sector. It would be useful if we could get feedback on it.
livinginbarbados // June 19, 2009 at 8:51 AM
@David
I am not able to read the Holder article at the moment, and do not recall it from the weekend, but perhaps he made this mention on BT.
If managed migration is at issue, schemes like this must be in place, even if not complete, because it shows a seriousness about the framework. To my mind, it only limits certain flows of people into certain areas, and does little to deal with a broader set of demand and supply of labour that can only operate by being illegal (ie overstaying/lying about purpose of travel etc.).
The US and Canada have it for agriculture, but of course that does not stop illegals flowing in. As Holder himself says in his article, they are unethical people on both sides to deal with (employers and job seekers), who have vested interests in paying lower wages and/or accepting lower standards of terms and conditions.
David // June 19, 2009 at 9:11 AM
This government and the previous the immigration issue divides them. Not sure if it is philosophical or a current government responding to a populist position. Our read is the reluctance by the former government to institute a register ran counter to the leadership position it had in implementing CSME.
livinginbarbados // June 19, 2009 at 9:27 AM
@David
I do not see logically how the leadership on implementing CSME would/should stop an adminstrative arrangement that remains consistent with the current agreement. There is no free flow of labour across the region, and various arrangements already accept that conditions must be met before say ‘certified’ graduates can move to other countries to work. So, a register seems not inconsistent with that. But we speculate.
Resisting registration makes sense if you just want to keep and open door policy, or if you feel that registration is like a fig leaf and will be an administrative burden that only deals with a tip of an iceberg.
David // June 19, 2009 at 9:56 AM
Agree with you if like you we accept that we are speculating.
The concept of CSME is predicated first on the free movement of certain categories of skill labour first! Are we wrong to think that the ultimate plan is to have 100% free movement.
livinginbarbados // June 19, 2009 at 10:15 AM
@David
There’s a lot of horse trading that goes into framing international agreements, and the list of skilled persons (university graduates, media persons, sports persons, artistes and musicians) is very limited, to say the least. Even if we do not agree that 100% free flow is expected, expanding that list of skilled persons can give a lot of latitude.
Hopi // June 19, 2009 at 2:45 PM
@………..MUBB . What’s your problem on this lovely day? So early you get up to pick a noise with me?When I seek to turn threads into 1 track discussion, just mek sure you ain’t on that track. Tell me how it is that economics and immigration are not related. Had the economics in GT been in order do you think that B’dos would be having that problem now? Mr. LIB is an economist who should be in a position to lend his expertise.
@…You Spy……..what say you about the immigration problem in B’dos? U haven’t contributed anything to the matter on this thread but U want to pop up just to shut me down? What is frivolous about economics?
Hopi // June 19, 2009 at 2:51 PM
@LIB…….Again, you are being circular. I say we settle for anything other than cash, say credit and use your figure of $40B. Does the bank or lender ACTUALLY have $40B to lend out?
Jay // June 19, 2009 at 3:26 PM
@David,if the ultimate plan were to move that way the outrage in Barbados would many more times than it currently is & Barbados would likely have to withdraw from CSME at that point.There was a reason why the BLP never allowed a referendum on CSME because they knew it wasn’t popular & still isn’t with Bajans,same in Antigua.
This top down approach as it comes to dealing with Caricom issues where all would have to give up some for a potential supra-national government & not including the people in the decision making will always FAIL & is somewhat akin to giving up sovereignty for a dictatorship.The politicians do NOT guide the Caribbean,the PEOPLE do.The very idea that NO ‘regionalists’ has questioned what happens if the CSME PROJECT fails if fully integrated should say a lot.Trading poverty in Member states is not a good idea[my idea at least] for advancing Barbados.On the illegal immigration issue it seems some Guyanese are catching on as to why Barbados has take the stance that it has.
———————————————-
http://guyanagovernance.blogspot.com/2009/06/guyanas-migration-has-characteristics.html
“Dear Editor,
Guyana Honorary Consul to Barbados, Mr. Norman Faria’s attacks on the Caribbean Congress of Labour’s (CCL) for its advice to undocumented immigrants in Barbados to regularize their status as offered under Barbados’ recent immigration policy, demonstrates once again the refusal to acknowledge there are significant differences between free movements of skills under the Caribbean Single Market and Economy (CSME) and illegal immigrants.
In the attempt to make the case against the CCL’s advice, Mr. Faria sought to separate me, a Guyanese and Guyanese Trade Unionist, from the statement by questioning my commitment to workers’ rights. It should be said that the fact that I am Guyanese does not mean I will join those crusading against the principles governing the CSME, a country’s right to its sovereignty and the rule of law. For the trade union this posture is not considered workers’ rights.
The Guyana Consulate in Barbados is the representative of the Government and people of Guyana. Recent statements made by Mr. Faria in the SN favourably comparing the relationship with the Government of former Prime Minster Owen Arthur against current Prime Minister David Thompson is reckless and making a bad situation worse. This immersion in Barbados national politics while performing diplomatic duties on behalf of the Guyana Government indicates that Mr. Faria lacks an understanding of his role.
This is the type of behaviour that pit countries against countries and people against people and more so can contribute to the prejudice against Guyanese living in, or visiting, Barbados. It would have served this nation best interest had Mr. Faria used the time to educate and advise Guyanese in Barbados as to their rights and how they need to pursue same.
The establishment of CSME was not done without regard to set guidelines and respect for the sovereignty of participating countries. The CSME’s policies were made, agreed to, and signed on to, by every CARICOM government; a fact their missions abroad are aware of. It is therefore the responsibility of the Guyana Consul to give proper advice to Guyanese in Barbados.
The Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas which includes the CSME established the legal framework for implementation and this has been enacted into domestic law by all countries participating in the CSME.
The key elements of CSME are:
• The free movement of skills/labour
• The free movement of goods
• The provision of services
• The free movement of capital
• The right to establishment
The CSME offers every CARICOM worker the right to seek employment in any member country. But with this right comes responsibility. Under the CSME there are two categories where employment can be sought: 1) those eligible under the CSME, and 2) those not belonging to the CSME categories.
Approved categories of workers are required to obtain a Certificate of Recognition of CARICOM Skills Qualification as provided for in the CARICOM Skills National Acts of Member States. This Certificate will facilitate free movement into and within Member States as it would provide Immigration Officials and the host country with proof that a CARICOM National belongs to the approved categories.
Workers not yet eligible for free movement will have to apply for a work permit.
Once they have found employment and have a job letter in hand, they must initiate the applicable procedures as laid out in relevant Immigration and Labour Acts in Member States before accessing employment.
The fact that some Guyanese felt, and were lead to believe, that the Free Movement of Skill meant they were not obligated to CSME’s guidelines and Barbados’ laws is an indictment on Guyana’s representative in Barbados.
Attacking the Caribbean Congress of Labour; making insinuation about the sincerity of Barbados’ amnesty, and creating conflicts in Barbados, national politics, does not absolve Mr. Faria from culpability.
It is important to note that while there will always be migratory push and pull factor, it is not the trades union’s position to encourage forced migration and this is what is taking place as it relates to the undocumented Guyanese migrants in Barbados.
The ILO and UN Conventions, the Caribbean Decent Work Agenda, and the Constitution of Guyana have entrusted the primary responsibility for a people’s wellbeing to the country’s Government.
The Barbados Consul therefore cannot be comfortable to have the Government of Barbados open its doors to immigrants who are forced to leave their land of birth, yet at the same time does not want the Guyana Government to use the country’s resources for the benefit of the people of this country. Guyana’s migration has the characteristics of a humanitarian crisis and the situation is made worse by the Government refusal to create the enabling environment where the people can find legitimate work, respect their human rights and provide security and quality social services.
For too long our politicians have boasted about Guyana’s economic potential yet we continue to live in poverty, or forced to migrate, because the dream eludes us.
The PPP was elected to do better than the PNC and it must go and do its job and stop blaming others for its deficiencies.
The time has come for Guyanese, inclusive of Mr. Faria, to demand that their Government provide for them rather than demonizing others to do so.
Let us use the Barbados experience to crusade for all Guyanese to be treated equally and benefit from the opportunities Guyana can offer to Guyanese regardless of race, class, or creed.
Lincoln Lewis”
Ready-Done // June 19, 2009 at 3:31 PM
Well employers don’t have to take taxes out of money for illegals, that is money out of the government pocket.
I vex! is that not tax evasion or some punishable offense?
I pay taxes every time i get pay and nobody ent even ask me if i want to pay taxes them just teck it out.
A registration system for construction and agriculture sounds nice but why stop there? in fact, is one not in place already, I always assumed all wages are to be registered and duly taxed, could this information not be used to gauge what is needed for proper management of the labor resource.
Anonymous // June 19, 2009 at 3:55 PM
Funny how the news both print and electronic, refuse to tell us that the two brothers charged and pleaded guilty to robbing the Bahamian vollyball team are not bajans. I am minding my business but could it be that they are guyanese? Note, I didn’t say they are, I’m just asking.
The Scout // June 19, 2009 at 3:58 PM
Anonymous
The problem is, you are too nosy.
David // June 19, 2009 at 4:36 PM
How we would like to be a fly on the wall on July 2 when Jagdeo behaves as Chairman of Caricom in a special caucus to proceed the next Caricom Heads meeting. We know that Thompson goes to that meeting with the FULL support of Bajans. He should not if required be timid to use all the words and expression in the lexicon, formal or informal to express the position of Barbados…WE WILL PROTECT OUR WAY OF LIFE.
Adrian Hinds // June 19, 2009 at 4:43 PM
Anonymous // June 19, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Funny how the news both print and electronic, refuse to tell us that the two brothers charged and pleaded guilty to robbing the Bahamian vollyball team are not bajans. I am minding my business but could it be that they are guyanese? Note, I didn’t say they are, I’m just asking.
————————————————–
Stay focus folks. We are winning this argument, and we have a government that we can at this time say is of the people. We do not need to focus on these alleged one-off instances of unsavoury activity by non-Barbadians in Barbados to prove anything, as they usually don’t. Those two young men could have easily been Barbadians by birth as is the character who murdered a guest to our island surely was. It proves nothing. Stay focus please.
mash up & buy back // June 19, 2009 at 4:43 PM
Anon
I was thinking the same thing.
That surname Polin is not a bajan name and I assume it was a non national.
Don’t look however for roxanne gibbs and the Nation to print that they are non national.
If they were killed on a construction site or a vehicular accident they will print that fast enough notif the committed
a crime.
If they are non national and did that to a visiting sports team,think what bad publicity that is when the bahamians go back home.
Note VOB ain’t say anything and I can’t recall if CBC had anything.
Adrian Hinds // June 19, 2009 at 4:46 PM
David // June 19, 2009 at 4:36 pm
How we would like to be a fly on the wall on July 2 when Jagdeo behaves as Chairman of Caricom in a special caucus to proceed the next Caricom Heads meeting. We know that Thompson goes to that meeting with the FULL support of Bajans. He should not if required be timid to use all the words and expression in the lexicon, formal or informal to express the position of Barbados…WE WILL PROTECT OUR WAY OF LIFE.
————————————————–
I wish i could be in Barbados to see my Govermental representative off to this meeting. There should be a gathering at the airport, all with the yellow blue in Hand to see the PM off to this meeting, so that he is well aware that he has the support of the MAJORITY citizens and Electors on this national issue.
mash up & buy back // June 19, 2009 at 4:53 PM
Adrian
What you must understand is that it is not a one off situation.
A lot of non nationals are engaged in crime but the Nation newspapers has taken a position not to indicate that the crime is by a guyanese.
In the Advocate newspaper last Sunday reverend Lucille Baird reported an incident which happened in Bakers village in st peter recently,where a guyanese was going around these homes late at night knocking on doors.
The story he was giving was that some men just hijacked his car and he needed help.
Apparently he was crying and appeared to be in a state.
He was refused entry,and was later seen driving away in the very said car which was allegedly hijacked.
Bajans need to know to be on their guard for these non antionals and their hard luck stories – whatever the stories may be.
So I totally agree with Anon querying the nationality of these individuals.
Adrian Hinds // June 19, 2009 at 5:07 PM
Fair enough I just found this article.
Negroman // June 19, 2009 at 5:10 PM
Reading the People Empowerment Party column in today’s Nation Newspaper,it gave the impression that David Comissiong is a very desperate individual trying to give legitimacy to his nonsensical position on this issue.
He has launch an attack on our immigration officers who are performing the duties that those officers are paid to do,that is making sure that all those who are arriving or living in Barbados have legitimate reasons to be here.David Comissiong fixation with his belief that illegals who are here for a lengthy period of time and who are working or purchased property in Barbados have a fundamental right to be in Barbados.No illegals have any rights in any country whatsoever including Barbados.If you are an illegal and are caught,the person should pay the penalty for the dishonest act that the individual carried out.The breaking of our immigration laws is a criminal offence and the perpetrators must be punish to the full extent of the law.
Many Caribbean nationals are deported routinely from the United States of America,England & other countries in this world.In recent times thousands of Caribbean nationals have been deported from the United States of America & England in particular.In some cases many of those Caribbean nationals left this regions many years ago and many of them do not have any real connection to the region because of the length of time spent abroad.I have not heard David comissiong commented on the repatriation of Caribbean nationals from those countries I mentioned.In some cases many of those returnees arrived only with the clothes on their backs.
David Comissiong your position is hypocritical & deceitful.
I hope our immigration department will continue to carry out the raids to remove the illegal non-nationals from Barbados.This government must enforce its new immigration policy to its fullest.
Isn’t it unfair to Barbados that illegal non-nationals falsely declared wrong information on their immigration forms about their true intentions in Barbados.?
If any mercy is to be shown,our Black Caribbean brothers & sisters must get that mercy,not the Indo-Guyanese.
I want no mercy for the Indo-Guyanese.I hope all are deported including musty Norman Faria.
J // June 19, 2009 at 5:13 PM
Dear mash up and buy back you wrote “In the Advocate newspaper last Sunday reverend Lucille Baird reported an incident”
And I suppose that you think that Pastor Baird like Ceasar’s wife is above reproach?
If she is irreproachable ask her then who gave her permission to build a big able church in a Zone 1 area. Ask her if she got permission? Ask her if she built without permission?
xenophobia disguised as Christianity.
What I hearing though?
Negroman // June 19, 2009 at 5:22 PM
Adrian Hinds
Gilbert Greaves is the Permanent Secretary,Defence & Security and is about to go on pre-retirement leave.Gilbert Greaves is a very decent gentleman who has the human touch .He is a kind,gentle& upright individual who I believe was taken advantage off by unscrupulous business people in Barbados and also the Guyanese
Adrian,interestingly that lady who jumped into wharf and was deported on many occasions has remarried and is living in Barbados and has a fairly successful bar & shop in a St Michael district.
mash up & buy back // June 19, 2009 at 5:25 PM
Kim young buzz off yuh creep.
Lucille baird whether you like her or hate her has always been known to do things above board,not like certain lawyers who tief clients money and live high on the hog with their paramours.
She has been on VOB in an interview describing how bit by bit she built that church through proper and legal means.
Stop trying to tranish the woman’s name with lies.
Wheel and come again.
mash up & buy back // June 19, 2009 at 5:28 PM
Negroman
Go easy on that ‘decent & upright man’ bit about gilbert greaves.
You may be surprised after all.
livinginbarbados // June 19, 2009 at 5:30 PM
I have not had much chance to follow discussions today, focusing on so-called quadruple witching in financial markets (on which I will not expand here :-)).
However, for those who may want to see how a middle American town is dealing with illegal immigration, I can recommend an article in last week’s The Economist, http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13832419.
Whatever your views about ethnic groups, regional integration, and a host of other issues, an essential element of anything that is supposed to work is that if you have rules then they need to be followed, otherwise you’re just yanking a chain.
Those of you who follow my comments know that I flag often the big chasm in Barbados between the ’should’ and the ‘do’.
Jay // June 19, 2009 at 7:41 PM
LivingInBarbados said:
an essential element of anything that is supposed to work is that if you have rules then they need to be followed
————————————
I completely agree,but following the rules is a two-way street.Barbados had already set the immigration rules but certain persons are not being compliant to said rules not to mention that many jurisdictions in Caricom appear to be blurring the lines in Caricom concerning CSME under the guise of Freedom of Movement concerning all nationals,which is non-existant in all territories.CSME is also implemented differently in quite a few Caricom states.
If there was complete Freedom of movement,imo the problems for Barbados would explode exponentially concerning trafficking of drugs & people.Antigua is also facing the exact same issue.
http://www.nationnews.com/story/tony-best-human-trafficking-copy-for-web
livinginbarbados // June 20, 2009 at 5:30 AM
@Jay
Setting rules is relatively easy, and many countries can go that far. In fact, you have several ‘failed states’ that have laws etc. on their books far superior to so-called advanced/successful states. But applying rules is hard, for some understandable reasons (resources, say) and many less understandable ones (lack of political will, let’s say).
Many countries do not apply rules until they hit a crisis, by which time much damage has been done but moreso many people have become accustomed to the status quo of rules not being applied. Then you have a devil of a time getting people to move to a new status quo of rules being applied, not least because a lot of vested interests have beein built on them not being applied.
Hopi // June 20, 2009 at 8:10 AM
@LivinginBarbados……. Well, some little whippersnapper popped up on this thread and saved your hide. There’s an adage out there that I can apply to …..”Blind them with brilliance or baffle them with bullshit.” And I can definitely say that in your case this option has proven ineffective to me. So run along!
BAJAN BORN // June 20, 2009 at 10:33 AM
Re. Mr.Lewis’ letter above. He does not address to Mr. Faria’s valid point that the CLC is not respecting the spirit of ILO conventions with regard to the undocumented and the general need to represent workers’ rights regardless of their status.
The fetishism on legality is a attempt at damage control.
Consul Faria as already pointed out tha his remarks about the watch of former Barbadian PM Arthur. Leiws got this alleged indiscretion by Faria from an article in the Guyanese nwspaper Stabroek News. I know Faria well and he has written PM Thompson to point out that what he said to the apparently inexperienced SN reporter has been taken out of context and skewed in a sensationalist way to try and boost the paper’s sales. Faria has the interview on tape and on it he repeatedly states that he could not publicly comment on Mr Thompson’s anouncement on immigration policy changes and that he (Faria) could not generally get involved in Barbadian domestic politics.So far, SN has ot apologised for its unprofessialism.
In fairness to Mr. Lewis, he may be unaware of this. However, as Consul Faria has written before about Lewis’ wild talk while he addressed a BWU meeting and effectively tarnished the good reputation of Guyanese in Barbados by describing them as criminals, Mr. Lewis needs to be properly trained in protocol and be more sensitive to his union members who may not support his ill-advised anti-Guyana government stance and his dishonest distortion of the facts about Guyana’s trade union history . Of course, he fails to mention how Burnham and his goons set dogs on striking mining workers, who happened to be black, and other anti-working class atrocites. Do we need to refer to his admitting that there is very real progress and development in Guyana including unprecedented and relatively high wage increases to Guyanese civil servants in recent years by the Guyana government ? Mr. Lewis, get real….
mash up & buy back // June 20, 2009 at 12:20 PM
Norman faria posting as bajan born here on BU and Reddy on Starbrok news – why haven’t you responded to ROK post earlier when he said how you cussed out a black guyanese citizen who needed the consul’s help with regard to his guyanese passport.
ROK also said that after cussing the guyanese man with the ‘F’ word and telling the man you told him not to come at your house,it is only when you saw rosevelt King coming out from where he was that you then went and helped the man.
This seems to bear out the rumours that you only seek to help indian guyanese.
I am waiting on the response of norman faria through you bajan born.
And you dare criticise the remarks of lincoln lewis when adressing the Barbados Workers Union.
BAJAN BORN // June 20, 2009 at 5:38 PM
Faria posting as Bajan Born ? Whey you get that from?
Lickoln Lewis is supposed to some god fuh you that nobody can critiise he ?
The problem with blogs like this is yuh got people like you coming on and jerking off –at leaset you got a lil honesty and said “rumours”. rosevelt King ? Who da dey ? I am told nobody can tell a government mission head what to do…ROK agrees with the racist Negroman who like if an Indian or whaite man look at he too hard he don get blood pressure rise…..do I need to say more.?
Skipper, yuh flogging a dead horse bout “discriminating aginst black people”. It dead. Tek it way. That is all yuh got left ? Yu en got brains to respond to waht Bajan Born write ? Or yuh going leave it to another jerk off called “David” ?
David // June 20, 2009 at 6:08 PM
Can you imagine that VOB has been running this woman’s slant of how she was deported to promote their talk show tomorrow? Talk about a sell out. How can we have this woman running her mouth and VOB does not have an immigration official to balance the thing? It’s all about ratings for VOB now because CBC starting to eat up some market share. VOB is no better than Analee Davis and her fable on video.
Anonymous // June 20, 2009 at 6:21 PM
Thank you,thank you David for saying what I have been thinking for a long time.
VOB and david ellis and mike browne are 2 nasty piece of work especially mike browne re this illegal immigration issue.
Just as we found out that george brathwaite is married to a guyanese hence he comes with a bias,it’s the same way that we might find out who of those down by thew rive got a guyanese woman or man.
This is not about ‘for love of country’,this is about self preservation.
I believe the barbados government needs to pay particular attention to the doings of one Annalee
Ruel Daniels // June 20, 2009 at 8:17 PM
A Black Guyanese citizen was on Benschop radio Saturday evening and he complained that Faria only represent the interest of Indian Guyanese in barbados. The Guy said that whenever they go to see Faria he always come out wearing tight tight short pants, and gives no help to black people.
Faria is one of the architects of the PPP’s racist policies against black guyanese. Jagdeo has hired a lot of white racist from all over the world, paying some of them as much as fifteen thousand US a month to advise him. They were even planning to recruit former white members of the South African apartheid era secret police to assist Roger Khan and his killing squad.
Faria and them rest trying to keep people silent while they carry out their dirty schemes. People all over the world are learning about the transplantation of apartheid in the commonwealth caribbean. It all coming out now.
The Scout // June 20, 2009 at 8:52 PM
I warned bajans from the start of this realisation of the influx of these guyanese, especially the indians into Barbados, then when they get here in sufficient numbers that they are going to cause havoc in this country. Problems only now start, the P.M has got to be firm and use all methods possible to get these illegals out or else pure hell brek down in we little Barbados. Already I hearing that many of them say they are not leaving, they would jump first, whatever that means.
General Lee // June 20, 2009 at 9:07 PM
We Bajans are a strange lot.
Over the years, how many of you have ever reported a suspected illegal immigrant to the immigration department?
How many of you, have objected to them being employed by Barbadian employers?
How many people refuse to rent them accommodation?
When will we recognize that illegal immigrants do not exist in a vacuum?
A large number of people and businesses profit in some form or fashion from having illegal immigrants on the island.
Which politician has gonads big enough to upset this apple cart?
I am of the belief that when this blows over, there will be not be any significant change in the status quo.
Themis // June 20, 2009 at 9:17 PM
You had better believe it, General Lee. This is just an exercise in diversion.
J // June 20, 2009 at 9:27 PM
“mash up & buy back // June 19, 2009 at 5:25 pm Kim young buzz off yuh creep.”
Dear mash up and buy back:
I am not Kim Young. I don’t know Ms. Young. I don’t know Ezra Alleyne either. I’ve never met Kim nor Ezra, not Lucille Baird”
I am INDIFFERENT to them all, and to you too.
But isn’t the church in zone 1 just a few metres across the gully from the “Bull’s Eye” reservoir at Carlton?
If proper permission was obtained surely you can tell us when and where?
Oh and I am not a creep either.
Adrian Hinds // June 21, 2009 at 9:42 AM
So General Lee, are you willing to take your argument further? let me help you.
What year was it that Owen Arthur made his famous statement “I employ guyanese too”?
Why did need to say this?
What year was it that the IMF via it’s yearly consultations with the Government of Barbados, first reported that wages in Barbados were comming down as a direct result to the importation of workers from the region?
What year was it that an illegal immigrant working on a construction site in Barbados lost both hands in an accident?
What year was it that Sir Roy Trotman complain of Bajans being sent home in favour of non-nationals, and made a call for an Employee registry?
What year was it that the then GoB embarked on making changes to the immigration laws of Barbados?
What year was it that we had 14 non-nationals working in Barbados for 10 dollars a day?
What year was it that an illegal immigrant jump into the careenage in an attempt to escape lawfull apprehension after being deported three times?
Continue to believe that this immigration debate just started. I understand why you would want to believe this, but the reality of the situation is that you are vastly outnumbered by persons with a differening view, and you should know that the majority always set the agenda. Their truth will win over yours. The only thing that is likely to blow over as a result is your view.
Adrian Hinds // June 21, 2009 at 10:04 AM
BAJAN BORN // June 20, 2009 at 5:38 pm
Skipper, yuh flogging a dead horse bout “discriminating aginst black people”. It dead.
————————————————–
ha ha ha ha keep dreaming. A recent incident of a black boy being beaten about the face while being called a nigger by two white men in Highgate gardens, proves this to a likely figment of your imagination.
A recent incident of a white couple hurling racial epithets at a black motoris in Barbados during a traffic accident again proves your ignorance.
Anonymous // June 21, 2009 at 10:24 AM
Adrian H white Bajan racists like Bajan Born relish this distraction of blacks by the illegal immigrants. As Richie Haynes said look out for much more consolidation of their economic power and increase in their seperatist discrimination.
mash up & buy back // June 21, 2009 at 11:50 AM
I just heard annalee davis in jamaica saying the most horrible,horrible lies about barbados on jamaican radio.
Saying that the immigration officers are torturing guyanese deportees when they are held at the airport by leaving the lights on all night etc.
Is Paul Davis related to annalee davis.
Why is the panel stacked in favour of the pro illegal immigration bunch.
Only lindsay holder there is strongly putting forward the managed migration position.
Listen to caswell franklyn who called and lindsay holder corrobating his call about how they are insulted by guyanese when they are in guyana – all because of the trouble stirred up by norman faria mia mottley ricky singh etc.
mash up & buy back // June 21, 2009 at 11:56 AM
Negroman
I hope you are listening to stinkin greaves telling caswell franklyn that no passports have ever been sold by any immigration officer.
Listen to him saying how he regularised illegal non nationals during the construction boom.
So these illegal immigrants once they were discovered were given regularised status because he did not want ‘the man project to come to a halt’.
That is the decent’upright ‘ mr greaves Negroman,and there is more to come.
General Lee // June 21, 2009 at 10:08 PM
Adrian Hinds // June 21, 2009 at 9:42 am
I am perplexed by your conclusion. How could you have arrived at such from my above?
As David would say, do a search of BU, using immigration as the keyword, to ascertain my position on this issue.
How much censure did the former PM attract after his admission?
How much was L&T fined for employing the 14 without work permits?
What has happened to Barbadian companies and employers doing the same?
Who were the enforcers then, am I to believe that every single one was unable to function effectively previously but will do so henceforth?
The point I was trying to make in the above post is this; illegal immigration is driven by economics, as stated already by others.
The majority that you speak of, having no economic clout, can do little more than complain. The present crop now in government, while in opposition said and did precious little to highlight this issue.
Am I now supposed to believe that they have awaken from their slumber and are not simply jumping on this particular wagon?
Anonymous // June 21, 2009 at 11:30 PM
Good points General Lee!
Adrian Hinds // June 22, 2009 at 9:55 AM
The point I was trying to make in the above post is this; illegal immigration is driven by economics, as stated already by others.
The majority that you speak of, having no economic clout, can do little more than complain. The present crop now in government, while in opposition said and did precious little to highlight this issue.
Am I now supposed to believe that they have awaken from their slumber and are not simply jumping on this particular wagon?
————————————————–
For me it is not a matter of their (dlp) sincerity. It is supporting the position that the majority of voter citizens have been agitating for, for sometime. When I look at your comments above, I see the points of a person who has the potential to see things as they are and deal with them in a non-partisan manner, but your presentation gives me pause, that this may not be your motive.
The majority does have economic influence; they have chosen not to exercise it to their own detriment. They also have political influence, which is still not manifested in its clearest sense due to a malingering but dying practice for party diehard-ism. It is true that the two political parties behave very similar when in opposition, and we should continue to call them on it if we think the issue is of National importance. I set the example that I wish others to follow with the Trini fishing/maritime boundaries dispute, as I am here once again doing the same with immigration. It is entirely possible that the DLP is not sincere in their approach. It is possible that there is an abundance of political calculation in their willingness to take on the wishes of the people at this time. This is what I expect from political parties. As a non-partisan politically active voter citizen I to will not shy away from using, threatening, and demanding from the political class that my local and national needs be met. If they choose to do so with the caveat that it helps their position, I am not that concern. Therefore, while their sincerity would be a good thing, it is not a requirement for me to support a position that coalesces with mine.
Johnnie Too Bad // June 22, 2009 at 10:11 AM
How beautiful it is to see and hear your selfish disposition Adrian, You are not concerned with the sincerity of your polticians once your needs are met, Taken to a logical conclusion, surely you must be concerned if your needs are met and the jokers thief the whole of the country at midnight. No, I do want some sincerity in my politicos, just how do you square this circle Adrian?
Johnnietoobad.
islander // June 22, 2009 at 11:37 AM
Haha, luckily i am too busy to be on everyday, unlike you adrian…do the phrases ” self righteous and pompous ” or “overly opinionated” strike a cord with you ?
Listen, i have read your posts, and you do make some good points, altho u dont afford that kudo to others…however POLITICS is NOT everything, as someone noted ECONOMICS is the actual driving force behind all things globally “see iraq etc” …The immigration issue both problem and policy has always been driven by the socio economic dynamic of the country, when we were going thru the construction boom, the need for large quantities of cheap labour was there, thus the influx of guyanese…excuse me for not expanding, but all i am saying is that this issue cannot be dealt with on the POLITICAl landscape…it has to be dealt with at the root cause…which is in the demographic of the socio (social) economic landscape…as many of these aliens(our brothers and sisters) have established deep social ties with barbados and barbadians….
Also my sharp friend (please do not miss the sarcasm) I am not using my ignorance of the law as an excuse…i simply stated that there seems to be no middle ground, i.e a way to rectify the situation….
Finally, why did u migrate to the US ? was it to better your standard of living or education ? hmmmm…why do the guyanese come here ? why did our fore parents migrate to Guyana in the 50s ? panama ? US in the 70s and 80s to date actually, UK in the 50s/60s/70s why ??? I mean step back from your overly opinionated POLITICAL agenda and think ! how would you feel if your offspring were rounded up like animals or you mum or dad were locked up in little more that a 10 by 10 cell and treated horribly…..I am a very fair minded person….remember…u r what u think..KARMA IS A BIT…
islander // June 22, 2009 at 11:47 AM
By the way, when Chris Gayle hits a six, or sarwan/Chanderpaul hits a boundary…even poor Sammy takes a diving catch or fidel moves a stump …do you say good shot Jamaican ! well done my bajan brother ! good catch yuh Monster Rat ! hmmm? no i am sure you say well done West Indies…our boys in burgundy ! or wud u prefer them to be wearing blue and gold …All i am saying is that there must be a more humane way to deal with this that to burst into someones home at 3 am and cart them off like pigs to market…..The few times i remember groups of people being rounded up and keep in quasi cages were …Hitlers germany, and some strange times on the West African Coast !
“LEST WE FORGET” !
islander // June 22, 2009 at 11:52 AM
lolol btw the way u wouldnt guess it , but I am David Thompson’s bigggggest supporter , or i am in the top 5 ! i just speak the truth !
Ready-Done // June 22, 2009 at 12:03 PM
Can any one tell me how long the deportee in custody before being deported?
Is there not a time period after the permit has run out where the now illegal are allowed to renew?
Is their not a amnesty in place for people to come forth and get registered?
Anonymous // June 22, 2009 at 12:28 PM
David ellis on vob with a construction manager who is speaking out against the influx of guyanese and others.
However ellis of course is talking his usual shite.
Taking a blow at BU without naming the blog.
He is back to this crap about racial tension being created if you continue to speak about this issue in a certain way.
Just an excuse to sanitise the discussion.
Adrian Hinds // June 22, 2009 at 12:47 PM
Anonymous // June 22, 2009 at 12:28 pm
David ellis on vob with a construction manager who is speaking out against the influx of guyanese and others.
————————————————-
his credibility is suspect, that one David Ellis. He can come here and have his say, without fear that the blogs would censor him as VOB claims it needs to do from time to time. Come on David Ellis what is stopping you? no upper hand in the coversation?
The Scout // June 23, 2009 at 3:12 AM
All you guyanese supporters are missing a vital point. Is it not true that the guyanese are fleeing their country because of government mismanagement? If Caricom leaders are so interested in intigration, why can’t they tell Jagdeo, he has to straighten up or step down. Regionalism is not obtained by just allowing nationals to move freely? The leaders would like that while the Gonsalves, Jagdeos and Kings of the region hang on to their positions and milk the economies of the more developed nations. If you really want a coming together, let them all step down from office and let there be one P.M/ President of Caricom and one cabinet. Then and only then would there be a positive step. I’m sure with proper management Guyana would become a force to be reckoned with globally.
livinginbarbados // June 23, 2009 at 5:01 AM
@Scout
Not taking issue with your position. But, “If Caricom leaders are so interested in intigration, why can’t they tell Jagdeo, he has to straighten up or step down. Regionalism is not obtained by just allowing nationals to move freely? The leaders would like that while the Gonsalves, Jagdeos and Kings of the region hang on to their positions and milk the economies of the more developed nations. If you really want a coming together, let them all step down from office and let there be one P.M/ President of Caricom and one cabinet. Then and only then would there be a positive step.” means that all national leaders would have to be removed from office so that the region could have one PM/President. Is that what you really envisage? Your suggestion cannot just target those whom someone feels are ‘bad’. Your suggestion cannot just target those whom someone feels are ‘bad’.
The Scout // June 23, 2009 at 7:58 AM
LIB
Definately not, the entire region will have to come together AS ONE. We tried it in a Federation many years ago and we know why it didn’t work; every leader wanted to be in charge. the same thing goes today, none of them want to step down from their ivory towers and become a simple citizen of a “Caribbean Republic”. Most of them have too much skeletons in their closet. What they would like is to sit down and come up with policies that would effect the average citizens while they live large. How can Barbados allow Tom, Dick and Harry and all others to swamp here while the locals who have made this country attractive enough for the world to take note, are pushed in the background. Even a docile dog, when cornered retaliates, why should Bajans not do the same?
Ready-Done // June 23, 2009 at 8:15 AM
It is clear the scout is speaking about he leaders of the the countries that are not developing at the same pace as the rest of us,in other words the leaders that ent doing their Jobs.
livinginbarbados // June 23, 2009 at 9:19 AM
@The Scout
I know of very few political leaders who ever step down once they have power in their grasp.
One of my challenges is to make remarks like “How can Barbados allow Tom, Dick and Harry and all others to swamp here while the locals who have made this country attractive enough for the world to take note, are pushed in the background.” It’s easy to say “swamp”, but then when asked to quantify we are in the dark. I can make any statement I want about a concern I have but I also need to know what is real. When you say “while the locals who have made this country attractive enough for the world to take note” the clear implication is that any one other than a local has made a zero contribution to Barbados’ success and that is just not going to fly.
If you take away from illegals, foreigners have been and will continue to be a part of Barbados’ economic success. If you do not believe that, take a look at who makes up the tourist sector. Just take a look at the wasteland for business when foreigners do not come here.
The issue about illegals is about rules/law, and that is irrespective of numbers: only 100 illegals shows laws/rules being broken, but no one might care because the number is small. The broader issues about immigration are really about numbers and composition, and could still be a problem even if there were no illegals. Legal migrants could be a real problem if by being legal they have all the rights of citizens and if they also consider making a place their home. So, zero illegal immigrants but 1000 legal immigrants could put any country into a worse situation.
livinginbarbados // June 23, 2009 at 9:24 AM
@Ready-Done
“It is clear the scout is speaking about he leaders of the the countries that are not developing at the same pace as the rest of us,in other words the leaders that ent doing their Jobs.”
But you cannot cherry-pick and I’m not sure you want to open the choice to those who are not part of the national electorate. You have PM Thomspon telling the region to butt out of national politics/policies.
Today’s good leader may become tomorrow’s goat. The national will is what should be left to determine if they continue. If you want to get rid of whomever you see as bad, then that may work against your beloved leader at some time if others in the region feel otherwise. If you want to leave it open then recall US operations to deal with leaders in the region that they did not like.
David // June 23, 2009 at 9:38 AM
@LIB
You continue to misunderstand the argument. A strength of the Barbados society through the years has been a sense of order. Not perfect by any means there was that sense which could easily be discern by observation. The PM has indicated he will comeback to the country on this matter of numbers and BU will hold him to it but we need to move forward. There is enough evidence whether by observation, Caricom nationals landed, anecdotal (Barbados is a tiny place). We know of the trips to Guyana by well placed people to import labour, we are aware of the contractors and cleaning companies which hire immigrants as a first option, we are aware of the corrupt immigration officers who for a loyal bed following would compromise the oversight intended by the immigration unit. Last but not least we are aware of the unprofessionalism of the media in dealing with the immigration and other matters where specific instructions were given not to mention Guyanese when they had to be portrayed in a negative light.
We could go on but as sensible Barbadians we don’t have to wait until Barbados is mired like others around us to take action. If we are wrong we will have the benefit of the doubt thank you.
The Scout // June 23, 2009 at 9:49 AM
LIB
You and others are making a stupid statement, you’re looking for numbers. We don’t have to give numbers, just walk, mix ans observe the large numbers of non-bajans in this country. Check with work sites and see the amount of migrance working on these sites. Then check with locals who go on these sites and are sometimes blatantly told “we don’t employ bajans.” Plus check in a vast majority of these “big=ups” houses and see who is the maid, not a bajan. The reason why? because they can pay these illegals small wages and demand unrealistic duties from them like washing the blankets in the dog kennel by hand. When these maids protest, they are threatened by attempting to call immigration to get them deported. There are certain levels of this society that is returning Barbados to the days of slavery, or maybe back to the early 1900’s that I used to hear my Grandparents talk about. If we allow these people to dominate our soiciety then our standard of living will be drastically reduced. We bajans have worked too hard to develop the style of living that we have to allow these illegals to pull us back into the pit. We owe it to our offspring to protect this country from such.
livinginbarbados // June 23, 2009 at 9:57 AM
@David
I don’t think I misunderstand ‘the’ argument (though I do not get the idea that there is one, rather than several).
“A strength of the Barbados society through the years has been a sense of order” is something well understood. Yet, what you then bring to the table shows a series of systematic disorderly activities, in terms of things that go against the law and order. Square that circle for me. What your argument shows is more a problem of disorderly actions by Barbadians, the results of which undermine many things. If I misunderstand that, then please show how.
“We could go on but as sensible Barbadians we don’t have to wait until Barbados is mired like others around us to take action.” You suggest that you are the sensible ones are everyone else is a fool? That does not fly either, and repeating it wont make it true.
Anonymous // June 23, 2009 at 10:00 AM
I think that it would be good if we could get this immigration problem settled!
I detest how some of the Guyanese are being treated! I know for a FACT that there is a particular person in Barbados who has a Guyanese as the housekeeper, babysitter as well as her assistant in her business.
Cud Christ man that is not fair. Now if this was a bajan they would have to pay them WAY MORE! But because it is the GT they exploit them! UNFAIR!
David Thompson do what you have to do!
Anonymous // June 23, 2009 at 10:04 AM
LIB YOU IS SOMETHING ELSE FUH TRUT!
You dont give a rat’s asssss about Barbados! When it is overrun and you open your ….. mouth you will claim oh it is because of this AND I KNOW YOU AND FAMILY will disappear! (Cause remember you only come here because of your wife) That alone shows your position on this matter!
You cant ram nothing down our throats!
The Scout // June 23, 2009 at 10:05 AM
We have come so far in our development that we can’t turn back now. Take for example, years ago,you could tell a painter, or carpenter, mason, or any construction worker by the cloths he wears to work. Today, office worker, maid, truck driver, clerk, they all dress similarly and many of them drive to work. It is development, we are each just doing a job. This has been a bug bearer for many of those “big-boys”, that’s why they relish the opertunity to exploit these illegals and would resist the P.M in his policy.
I was at one of these houses one day and witnessed something that turned my stomach. This couple had friends over for lunch. When they were finish eating and talking and the friends left, the lady of the house, put the food that remained from the four of them plates and called the illegal maid for her lunch. She came and ate joyfully, a few days later, because she refused to wash the dirty, messy dog blanket without gloves, that woman called immigration dept and had that woman deported. By next week another such illegal took her place. Is this what we want for Barbados. Incedentally, the lady of the house was the wife of a diector who is working here for an international organisation. Words get around at that circle, who to employ. We MUST put a stop to this. Sure you wouldn’t find a bajan do that, that is why you would hear that these illegals are doing work that bajans wouldn’t do but is this what we should encourage?
Anonymous // June 23, 2009 at 10:07 AM
We have allowed persons like you to come and judge us! You think Britain, Ireland, where ever it is that you come from, that bajans can tell the native inhabitants what to do!
Wars have been fought for land!
Why you here again to insult us and our way of life right!
Hog Squeal // June 23, 2009 at 10:12 AM
Every post on BU which has to do with Opposition Leader Mia Mottley or the BLP generates most comment.
That suggests that the people see them as being relevant and as having what it takes to rescue Barbados and put it back on track.
In this time of turmoil and recssion, the BLP remains a beacon of hope for Barbadians and the people of the region – hence to Barbadians.
livinginbarbados // June 23, 2009 at 10:19 AM
@The Scout
“You and others are making a stupid statement, you’re looking for numbers. We don’t have to give numbers, just walk, mix ans observe the large numbers of non-bajans in this country.”
I’m with Bajans and non-Bajans a lot of the time. You equate non-Bajan with illegals. That is bogus. I have a non-Bajan working for me, whom I brought from my previous position in Africa and her working papers are in order, like mine through 2010. Several acquaintances are in a similar position. Most of the people who offer services in my neighbourhood are Bajans.
Let me share my experience over the last week doing just that, giving some not all instances.
1. Building site: (a) Bajan foreman, Jamaican and Guyanese carpenters (all legals, judging by the ID cards). Home owner: Barbadian. (b) Manager-English, workers Chinese (Barbadian government-sponsered).
2. Restaurant: all serving staff Bajans (or I should say speaking with Bajan accents); cooking staff Japanese; guests mainly non-Bajans; hosts Bajans whose parents came here 60 years ago.
3. Large regional corporation: CEO-English; executives-various, English, Bajan, St. Lucian; sales staff-all Bajan.
4. Hotel: manager-Jamaican; front desk staff-Bajans; service staff-Bajans; bar and restaurant staff-Bajans.
5. Plastics company: all Bajans
6. Agricultural company: owner (white) Bajan; staff-Bajans.
7. Court: law officers-all Bajan; violent crime offenders/accused-10 Bajans, one Jamaican (picked up at GAIA); traffic offenders-Bajans (about 60), one Canadian, one English.
8. Schools: Teachers, mainly Bajan, some English, some Trini. Children: mainly Bajans, some foreign (Europe, US, other Caricom)
9: Football match: crowd-all Bajan; did not get to check on the make up of the local teams playing.
Those are some of my ‘casual observations’.
David has said we should wait for PM Thompson to provide the numbers, which presumably he is doing because he thinks they are important–not the whole story, for sure. I will also wait and hope that his disclosures give some better understanding of what is the situation.
Hog Squeal // June 23, 2009 at 10:20 AM
Lawrence Duprey’s CL Financial Group provided scarcely imaginable largesse to the ruling People’s National Movement (PNM) party in the last general election at a time when it was already on the ropes-short on cash and highly leveraged.
The by-then cash-poor conglomerate bankrolled the 2007 election campaign of the Patrick Manning-led PNM party to the tune of some TT$20 million, according to sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
And while much of CL’s money went through a somewhat circuitous route to sundry suppliers of goods and services: from the printing of fliers and tee shirts to tent and maxi-taxi rentals, the bulk of it was applied to direct billings from advertising agencies for media activity, said sources.
Some of it however, was paid directly into the party’s coffers. One such payment was made directly to the People’s National Movement from the group’s insurance subsidiary, Clico, on June 28, 2007, for the generous sum of TT$5 million.
The TT$5 million cheque, drawn from a Republic Bank-held account at Independence Square in Port of Spain, was endorsed less than a month before the November 5, 2007, vote by Rose Janierre, assistant party secretary and Linus Rogers, PNM elections officer.
The TT$5 million Clico payout to the PNM’s war chest was made at a time when the country’s No1 insurance company had already been red-flagged with solvency issues, a statutory fund deficit of close to a billion dollars and what financial observers warned were dangerously excessive levels of inter-party transactions within the group.
http://www.stabroeknews.com/2009/news/local/06/22/clico-tt20m-pnm-gift/
Adrian Hinds // June 23, 2009 at 10:21 AM
Anonymous // June 23, 2009 at 10:04 am
LIB YOU IS SOMETHING ELSE FUH TRUT!
You dont give a rat’s asssss about Barbados! When it is overrun and you open your ….. mouth you will claim oh it is because of this AND I KNOW YOU AND FAMILY will disappear! (Cause remember you only come here because of your wife) That alone shows your position on this matter!
You cant ram nothing down our throats!
————————————————-
Why should he. He is a Jamaican with a fake British Accent. No ties that could bind him to us.
PM although it cannot be said that he targeted Dennis Jones as I don’t think he factors that high in the thoughts of our leaders, The PM clearly spoke about activity of NON-BARBADIANS that defines Dennis Jones sojourn here. The man has demonstrated in words, his utmost dislike of many things on this island including it’s people. I would still listen to him any day. That accent is priceless comedic value. ha ha ha lol!
Remember B.C.Pires came to us with a big roar, and all that was heard was the same empty and tired Bajan dis Bajan dah, dis island is just uh speck uh sand etc. Now today hardly anyone can recall what he writes. Having an impact? hardly. anyway Keep talking Dennis I listening. ha ha ha lol!
Anonymous // June 23, 2009 at 10:24 AM
You as well as the GOB should be shame to mention all the positions that these non nationals are taking up!
You mean to tell me that you cannot find a bajan to fill any of those positions!
Lets carry it a little further, and YET you crucify Barbados for not allowing non nationals to come in when you just proved that you know many persons who are legally living here!
What is Barbados doing that is so wrong in making sure that there is a proper managed migration policy!
Adrian Hinds // June 23, 2009 at 10:26 AM
In other words Scout, Dennis Jones is telling you that what seek to defend as already been lost. You can believe him and let it come to past. Or you can continue to put pressure on our political class ready to vote their asses in and out until you get the group that understands that YOU the born and Bread Bajan is core to this country. The Barbados that Dennis Jones describes is one to his benefit, and not yours. 2010 Cannot come sooner.
Negroman // June 23, 2009 at 10:36 AM
Scout very well said.These pro – immigrant sentimentalists are not rational or reasonable in their support for illegal immigrants.
It is unfair to Barbados or any country in this world that people could blatantly mislead or put false information of their immigration cards when visiting a country.I am tired of hearing that illegal immigrants are being unfair in Barbados.It serves them right because they should not be in the country in after their legal visit has ended.Illegal immigrants have no rights whatsoever and whatever treatment is meted out to them is justify.
Living in Barbados.Why are you trying to intellectualize the issue.You are talking about scientific data,quantitative deduction & all the other fancy terms to rationalize the issue.Even though those methods are useful in many subject matters,in the context of this issue it is not necessarily.The data is there for all of us to see.We see it in our districts.We see it when we go about our daily activities such as shopping in town,on the beach or in any social setting.We do not need any set of figures to recognize that we have a real problem with illegal immigration.
Living in Barbados ,it is non-national dishonest intellectuals like yourself who believe that Barbadians are unintelligent and are unable to rationalize or debate issues at a particular level.
Living in Barbados I have read many of your comments and you have not impressed me and I am sure many other Barbadians that our new immigration policy is wrong and you have not given credence to support the illegal immigration issue.
Illegal immigrants have no rights whatsoever in any country and those that caught should be treated in any manner deem desirable.
livinginbarbados // June 23, 2009 at 10:45 AM
Certain things are clear. Earlier in this thread, David argued that there is not one voice or opinion amongst journalists or politicians on this (or any matter): “Should we assume that all the journalists at the Nation and VOB think as one on the issue of immigration?” he wrote. There is also not jsut one voice or opinion more generally.
I’m prepared (and currently have time) to make arguments that may not be shared by others, and do not bolster them by offering personal slights. I am prepared to pick holes in what I see as weak logic.
@Adrian
My English accent is as real as my French and Russian accents, though they come over less well on English-speaking radio. If I speak in Jamaican patois, then I would have to deal with a similar set of “Is wha’ he sey?” So, pick your poison.
As another asked about ‘ties that bind’, should the voice of those who have left Barbados and speak from afar be the same as those who have come from afar and are now here in Barbados? Bizzy Williams has shown recently how easy it easy to confuse things on matters such as that.
The PM’s comments about non-Barbadians pointed in several directions, for sure, but it’s also interesting that many of the opposing voices are in fact Barbadians, and well-known ones too.
StudentX // June 23, 2009 at 10:52 AM
Immigration and Economic Growth.
Policy makers should remember that a major objective of policy must be to increase the happiness of citizens and residents of a country. In this regard for most persons, increases in income are very important.
Economic models inform us that increases in population will result in increases in the GDP (total wealth of the country) for the simple reason that, at a minimum, the consumption component of GDP will increase- the immigrants must eat, buy clothes, etc. Additionally, the new immigrants, mostly from the Caribbean, help to provide labour for the construction and the agricultural sectors, but there are also non- Caribbean immigrants whose contribution to the economy might be less important in terms of increasing the wealth of the average Barbadian.
Our Caribbean bothers and sisters contributions might be less but they also take less in terms of salaries and profits.
Whether immigrants are from the Caribbean, Europe, or elsewhere we still have to determine if, at the end of the day, the average Barbadian is better off as a result of large-scale immigration? A bigger economy does not necessarily mean than the average person gets a bigger slice of the economic wealth.
In the context of Barbados, before we get very far in the process of increasing the GDP through immigration, we would have had to deal with the balance of payments constraints. Will there be enough foreign exchange to support the increase in consumption? We can borrow foreign exchange and sell off real estate to foreigners to attract inflows and have healthy looking foreign reserves. But this approach is not sustainable
To solve the foreign exchange problem, the structure of production in our economy would have to be changed in a manner that results in the increased production of exportables. Can we do it? The required structural changes have eluded us in the past.
The growth models also inform us the average income for depends on the capital available to each worker and the productivity of workers. The capital per worker measures the physical and social infrastructure available to each worker. Physical capital would be primarily the equipment that can be provided. Social infrastructure would be things like education, health, housing etc. Where will the money come to provide the new immigrants and existing workers with the capital to make this economy more competitive?
Perhaps the major influence on the income of the average Barbadian is technological change, which is essentially the ability of the workers and managers to be innovative. If the new immigrants are innovative and entrepreneurial and existing workers learn from the immigrants, there is likely to be an overall increase in productivity and an increase in income for the average Barbadian.
The more probable outcome however, is that the immigrants will sooner or later find out that there is no pressure on them to be innovative and entrepreneurial and to export goods and services. This is true for Caribbean and non- Caribbean immigrants. They very quickly realize that retailing, wholesaling, and the food industry can provide them with a good living. The existing Barbadian operators in these sectors will be replaced by the immigrants and the desired increases in the income for the Barbadians is not likely to have been achieved.
The conclusion is that large-scale immigration is likely to result in a bigger economy as total income would increase but is unlikely to result in increased income for the average person. Additionally we would still have to deal with the environmental and social problems such as inadequate disposal of waste, inadequate housing, poor transportation, and declining access to quality health care.
The Scout // June 23, 2009 at 11:12 AM
LIB
If you discovered that you were standing in a ants’ nest and they were stinging the hell out of you, would you stop to count how many ants are there before you get rid of the problem? On second thought, I think you would check numbers first to see if you can tolerate them first and what is the benefits derived by the stings.Maybe they are injecting some needed energy into your body.
Hog Squeal // June 23, 2009 at 11:14 AM
StudentX
That is an excellent post. You are definately not a DEM!
Themis // June 23, 2009 at 11:15 AM
But Scout, what if you were not feeling the stings and someone told you that you were being stung and that you were standing in an ant’s nest? Would you not look down to see if it were true?
Adrian Hinds // June 23, 2009 at 11:31 AM
It is time that we Barbadians who support our Government’s intent on instituting a manage migration policy, come together in meetings of the minds to plan our responses, further educate ourselves on what is propose, why it is oppose, the agendas of those who oppose it, Unify our brothers and sisters and on why we must be prepared to demonstrate our resolve with our wallets, pockets, and cheque books. They are not the only ones who can plan we can too, and so we must.
livinginbarbados // June 23, 2009 at 11:33 AM
@Adrian
My apologies for not alerting you to my commentary on Brass Tacks (on the problems of legal migrants perhaps posing a bigger burden on Barbados than illegals), which I just made. Perhaps you can catch it later :-) Otherwise, have a wonderful day.
Adrian Hinds // June 23, 2009 at 11:46 AM
livinginbarbados // June 23, 2009 at 10:45 am
Certain things are clear. Earlier in this thread, David argued that there is not one voice or opinion amongst journalists or politicians on this (or any matter): “Should we assume that all the journalists at the Nation and VOB think as one on the issue of immigration?” he wrote. There is also not jsut one voice or opinion more generally.
————————————————–
Such assumption games has no value. In the absence of clearly publicize or even privately aired views to the contrary as to what their political party and leader, their editorial page and opinions says then their secretly held opinions also has no value. How can it be said that you have a voice if you do not speak up, out or against what is the clear opinion of those around you?
…..When a Barbados Immigration or Custom officer is accuse of “roughing-up” a visitor to the island, does Analee Davis, or Raph Gonzalves, or Jagdeo, or Norman Girvan or Mia Mottley and others selectively redicule that officer or that department? No they include the Government the Prime Minister and indeed all Barbadians. If we are all guilty because we are all proud Bajans, then i see no reason to absolve those working in or are members of an institution who’s official statement via their leader, or their Editorial page makes known where their stand.
mash up & buy back // June 23, 2009 at 11:46 AM
Hog squeal
You can’t read too good.
Read the conclusion in the last paragraph in the post by student X and you will see that he/she does not agree with you or the BLP and in fact is saying that these immigrants (usually the indians – my interpretation) will not increase exports but will engage in importing and buying and selling.
In addition they will put pressure on our water,schools,garbage collection etc.
Go back to school ho squeal and learn how to read and understand.
Anonymous // June 23, 2009 at 11:47 AM
@LIB
Was it you that said to look at the Immigration issue from the aspect of Barbados not being prepared for the amounts of persons which they think they can accept and yet still cant? lol!
If it was you, you are playing devils advocate! lol!
Adrian Hinds // June 23, 2009 at 11:50 AM
livinginbarbados // June 23, 2009 at 11:33 am
@Adrian
My apologies for not alerting you to my commentary on Brass Tacks (on the problems of legal migrants perhaps posing a bigger burden on Barbados than illegals), which I just made. Perhaps you can catch it later :-) Otherwise, have a wonderful day.
————————————————–
Tell us how you arrived at this FUTURE POSSIBILITY. Can’t be anything better than prophecy from an economist. I want to read the specifics of your musings. Indeed I can always extract the comedic value of it’s delivery later.
Hog Squeal // June 23, 2009 at 11:52 AM
Adrian Hinds // June 23, 2009 at 11:31 am
It is time that we Barbadians who support our Government’s intent on instituting a manage migration policy.”
++++++++++++++++++++++
The manage migration policy is not a DLP initiative – it is BLP policy – the very one the BLP was about to implement when the government change.
The DLP is intent on “deportation” Remember, Thompson said Barbados is for Barbadians.
Your post sound like damage control and a coming around to what the Opposition Leader was saying all along:
“manage migration, an electronic border management system and a humane immigration policy that reflects our national strategic objectives as it relates to:
labour, agriculture, the economy, standard of living and quality of life.”
Livinginbarbados // June 23, 2009 at 11:54 AM
@Adrian
“Tell us how you arrived at this FUTURE POSSIBILITY. Can’t be anything better than prophecy from an economist.”
Perhaps you are unaware that BT is usually aired again later in the evening. It is also possible to call the studio and ask them for a CD of the day’s broadcast. No prophesy just an inconvenient truth.
Livinginbarbados // June 23, 2009 at 11:57 AM
@Anonymous,
My remarks are consistent with what I wrote here earlier. Managed migration is not the same as bearable migration: zero illegals but 1000 legals can be a bigger burden. I will take Mr. Marshall’s agreement as meaning that I am not a total fool.
Livinginbarbados // June 23, 2009 at 12:08 PM
@The Scout
“If you discovered that you were standing in a ants’ nest and they were stinging the hell out of you, would you stop to count how many ants are there before you get rid of the problem? On second thought, I think you would check numbers first to see if you can tolerate them first and what is the benefits derived by the stings.Maybe they are injecting some needed energy into your body.”
I look forward to your reply to Themis.
Having lived this kind of experience, I did want to know whether the nest had in a few or many ants. After I ran away, I went back to see from what I was fleeing. I saw that it was a small nest and dealt with my concern by just leaving it be.
I personally don’t think it’s a good example. The ants had every right to sting me as I was probably damaging their home, yet I was only one against their possible many yet they chose to attack me. Bees might be better, because we could then discuss whether they brought me benefits (honey, pollenation of crops) and if getting rid of them may actually destroy what I was in the process of building (a honey business and an orchard).
Anonymous // June 23, 2009 at 12:13 PM
So does that mean you will LEAVE!
Adrian Hinds // June 23, 2009 at 12:16 PM
Hog Squeal // June 23, 2009 at 11:52 am
Adrian Hinds // June 23, 2009 at 11:31 am
It is time that we Barbadians who support our Government’s intent on instituting a manage migration policy.”
————————————————-
On any national issue, such as this I look to My government for clarity guidence, and action that defends our border, and our culture, to the benefit of us authorized Citizens of Barbados.
Note I said our Government, it matters little to me as does our Parliamentary rules which political party makes up the Mojority, during it’s life and sessions. The position of the LOTO is an office and significant part of a active government and parliament. That said to some who thought of the idea tends to feature less than the person who institutes it. Action in my book will always speak louder than mere words.
Political party only matters to me during the silly season (um is such a silly institution) when I pick a side and actively encourage my fellow Barbados electors on why they should join me in my choice.
BTW: It is very clear that you are squealing for attention, and as a hog, the trough you long for will not be in sight for another 3 years, after which it may be another five. Do you have a backup plan in the event that you are 8 years remove from your favourite feeding utensil?
Sargeant // June 23, 2009 at 12:22 PM
@Hog Squeal
• The manage migration policy is not a DLP initiative – it is BLP policy – the very one the BLP was about to implement when the government change.
**************************************
Hog Squeal an apt name if I may say so; cuddear yuh mean the people throw you out of office before you could implement de immigration policy? You had 14 years and now dem so ungrateful that they didn’t give you another 14 years to implement all these plans that yuh had in mind. Leh we know bout de udder tings dat we missed by changing de guv’t.
Adrian Hinds // June 23, 2009 at 12:29 PM
I am fully aware of VOB rebroadcast and cd offerings. I can offer cd’s too. If anyone wants a copy of Rawle Eastmond’s Diabolical speech let me know. lol! De Devil he says is/was in his BLP collegues. ha ha ha
Livinginbarbados // June 23, 2009 at 11:54 am
@Adrian
“Tell us how you arrived at this FUTURE POSSIBILITY. Can’t be anything better than prophecy from an economist.”
————————————————-
This is all foolishness, that is likely more about legitimizing your title as an economist than shedding light on anything. This is purely a three way hair split with the defines of illegal migratin vs. Manage migration vs. “bearable Migration” the constant in all three is BODIES, and core to our argument is SPACE as in LANDMASS. Our support for the Manage migration policy is rooted in BODIES vs. SPACE with other off shoots concerns.
Anonymous // June 23, 2009 at 12:36 PM
BTW: It is very clear that you are squealing for attention, and as a hog, the trough you long for will not be in sight for another 3 years, after which it may be another five. Do you have a backup plan in the event that you are 8 years remove from your favourite feeding utensil?
___________________________
HA HA HA LOL! AH I respect you fah trut!
You aint easy!
livinginbarbados // June 23, 2009 at 12:46 PM
@Adrian Hinds
“Our support for the Manage migration policy is rooted in BODIES vs. SPACE with other off shoots concerns” Well that last clause seems open-ended, but that does not concern me at the moment.
I do not buy this land/space argument except as being a limiting factor. It depends what you do with the land and people. Like with agriculture, any land mass can be made more productive than another of the same size.
Hong Kong has 7 million people on 31 squre miles, but generates considerably more income than Barbados.
Singapore has nearly 5 million on 225 square miles, and has an ethnic mix that is about 3/4 Chinese, but has Malays and Indians, plus a sizeable mix of Arabs and European-based ethnicities. It too is considerably wealthier than Barbados.
Both of these Asian economies have very diverse economies, with only a small base built on tourism.
These other very densely populated countries are not irrelevant to Barbados’ experience, I argue, not least in how they deal with migrant flows.
Adrian Hinds // June 23, 2009 at 12:54 PM
A deliberately complex pyrimid of migration, illegal, managed, and bearable has been constructed by those who see it as their place and role to engineer changes to our respective Islands against our wishes. If there were any truth to the labels thrown at us, such as “ethnic cleansing” “xenophobic” “discriminatory” etc. Would we be supporting a Manage process to migration? What does Managing process tell you? Does it mean to stop the process all together?
Anon: Unlike many I have not and refuse to put ALL childish things. There is a still clear need to tell it like it is, and such as always been child’s play.
Anonymous // June 23, 2009 at 1:00 PM
So LIB why you aint living in these places such as Hong Kong, signapore etc.
You should go you know!
Adrian Hinds // June 23, 2009 at 1:01 PM
LIB develop the comparison for me I am not feeling you on where you are going with it. What do these comparisons have to do with Barbados and what IT’S CITIZENS WANT? ALSO TELL US WHAT ARE THE OTHER SIMILARITIES, HISTORIES, AND CURRENT EXPERIENCES, CULTURE AND LAWS that are similar to Barbados. Also tells us of all the differences if any, and if any of those differences are important to the continued harmony between the various ethnicities in their spaces.
StudentX // June 23, 2009 at 1:20 PM
There is a reality that we must all face up to. Barbados simply cannot afford to have all these immigrants at this time. Another year of declining tourism revenues, increasing difficulty in getting foreign exchange loans and declining foreign direct investment will result in declining foreign reserves.
livinginbarbados // June 23, 2009 at 1:31 PM
@Adrian Hinds
“…develop the comparison for me…”
Simply put, bodies and land arguments only tell us that people exist in a space.
I cited Hong Kong and Singapore as examples of countries much more densely populated than Barbados and use that to their advantage. Economists might say they have exploited the economies of scale.
So, saying that Barbados has problems of migration because of its population density don’t make much sense.
Culturally and politically, the others countries/territories are very different. Now, if we are to discuss whether Barbados is culturally disposed against immigration, or that Barbados’ citizens say they do not want immigration, then that can go ahead with no regard to density.
livinginbarbados // June 23, 2009 at 1:34 PM
@Anonymous
“So LIB why you aint living in these places such as Hong Kong, signapore etc.”
Been there, done that. Two years in HK, and only a few months in Singapore. Black people living in south-east Asia are a real novelty, so think about a spell there and see how you like it.
David // June 23, 2009 at 1:43 PM
@LIB
To raise Hong Kong and Singapore to the debate is to disregard the cultural context at play.
livinginbarbados // June 23, 2009 at 2:18 PM
@David
“To raise Hong Kong and Singapore to the debate is to disregard the cultural context at play”
I raised them in the context of land/space, as a challenge to the ‘we’re densely populated’ notion, as if that were some absolute.
I wont say that you are doing what I am sometimes accused of by now saying, but we must take account of ‘cultural context’.
One can always find a reason why a comparison is not wholly valid, especially if they take us in directions we don’t like :-)
Anyway, it’s there for those who want to consider it.
I’m now reflecting on a caller saying that new apartments being built are going to be taken up by “illegals” (I hope I heard right), because the rents are too high for ordinary Bajans, but “illegals” can afford them because they dont worry about living in privacy. Interesting, to think that if she is right and illegals get sent out, what will happen to the apartments which the Bajans cannot afford.
Anonymous // June 23, 2009 at 2:19 PM
Well go back!
Hog Squeal // June 23, 2009 at 2:20 PM
Sargeant said:
“You had 14 years and now dem so ungrateful that they didn’t give you another 14 years to implement all these plans that yuh had in mind. Leh we know bout de udder tings dat we missed by changing de guv’t.”
+++++++++++++++++++
Sir,
Read the National Strategic Plan 2006-2025 or the BLP’s 2008 Manifesto.
For sure ,if the BLP was in office, Barbadians would not be price gouged on land tax, petroleum prices and water as they now are.
The unemployment rate would be no where near double digits, furthermore 10.1% and Barbadians would definately not be distracted with a debate on “deportation.
Regional scholars and Heads would not be cussing the Barbados government and Barbadians would be better received when they travel.
The CSME would be further advanced and Barbados would be providing leadership for Barbados and the region.
For sure, the Guyana President would not be leading talks when the region meets Obama in July.
livinginbarbados // June 23, 2009 at 2:26 PM
@Anonymous
“Well go back!”
Sounds similar to the mantra in England that many Caribbean migrants heard: “If they’re black, send them back”, or “We don’t want your kind here” or “England for the English”.
Hog Squeal // June 23, 2009 at 2:29 PM
Key immigration issues
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Employment Eligibility Verification.
In 2009, federal contractors will be required to use E-verify, an electronic system (that’s voluntary for other employers) to confirm the work eligibility of new hires.
Congress must reauthorize funding for the E-verify program before March 1, but business groups vow to fight it, calling the system onerous.
Civil liberties groups say its inaccuracies will penalize legal workers.
President-elect Barack Obama has said he favors making such a system mandatory for all employers but he wants it to include improved accuracy and privacy standards.
Immigration raids: During the past two years, the Bush administration has stepped up arrests of illegal immigrants through worksite raids and operations targeting immigration fugitives.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents arrested 40,000 people in 2008 and 36,000 the year before. Immigrant advocates say the raids have disproportionately hit workers rather than abusive employers.
Obama has condemned the human toll of the raids.
Border enforcement: Border Patrol funding and staffing more than doubled during the Bush administration, and Homeland Security officials have been working overtime to build 700 miles of border fence, although only about half of that will be done by the end of the year.
Obama has said he supports strong borders, and he voted to authorize the fence, but he has said that a fence is not the best approach.
Earned legalization: Obama has said he supports allowing otherwise-law-abiding undocumented immigrants to obtain legal status if they pay a fine and back taxes, admit they’ve broken the law, learn English and go to the back of the line.
He supports the DREAM Act, which offers citizenship to college-bound young people brought to the United States illegally as children.
But observers believe that these proposals will have to wait behind priority issues like stimulating the economy, ending the war in Iraq and fixing the nation’s health care system.
Legal immigration reform: Obama favors fixing the “dysfunctional bureaucracy” in the legal immigration system, including eliminating backlogs for family based immigration.
The country faces a still-unresolved debate over whether to offer more green cards based on the country’s economic needs – for both high- and low-skilled workers – or continue the current arrangement that favors family ties.
-Tyche Hendricks
The story is said to have been taken from the webpage of SFGate, home of the San Francisco Chronicle, but was copied from the webpage of the Barbados Labour Party (news section)
++++++++++++++++++
Let us discuss and see why – unlike what Hartley Henry says, David Thompson is so unlike Obama but much more like George Bush.
David // June 23, 2009 at 2:33 PM
@LIB
It is known immigrants legal and illegal share apartment/house space and share rents. If illegals go back wouldn’t demand and supply kick in? Wouldn’t rents be forced down?
Hog Squeal // June 23, 2009 at 2:43 PM
TWO REGIONAL academics have accused Barbados of dragging its feet on the CARICOM Single Market and Economy (CSME) and being anti-integration and have called for a reshuffle in CARICOM’s quasi-Cabinet.
But the criticisms have received swift responses from twosenior Government MPs.
University lecturer Dr Tennyson Joseph has labelled the David Thompson administration “not pro-integration”, while Professor Norman Girvan said CSME was currently “paralysed” because of a general lack of enthusiasm among present CARICOM leaders – including Prime Minister Thompson.
Speaking on Starcom Network’s Tell It Like It Is on Friday, Joseph, a lecturer at Cave Hill campus of the University of the West Indies, said “the language and pronouncements made [by the Thompson Administration] would lead one to conclude that the current leadership is not pro-integration”.
He also called for some leaders to be shifted in CARICOM’s quasi-Cabinet.
“You actually look at commitment, skill and personal ability, for example, before you give someone a ministry . . . [but] what we have in CARICOM is where a Prime Minister may inherit a portfolio,” said Joseph, who was political advisor to former St Lucia Prime Minister Dr Kenny Anthony.
http://blp.org.bb/news/451
livinginbarbados // June 23, 2009 at 2:45 PM
@David
I’m thinking this through, because it really depends whether there were meant for locals or foreigners in the first place, and if the pricing really reflects the costs or include some huge profit.
More generally, judging by what we have seen in the past year, rent prices do not move downward that easily but when they do it does not appear that the demand comes in (see my comments on that a few days ago, http://livinginbarbados.blogspot.com/2009/06/whats-going-on.html).
Christopher Halsall // June 23, 2009 at 2:48 PM
@David: “If illegals go back wouldn’t demand and supply kick in? Wouldn’t rents be forced down?
In a frictionless economy, yes…
Barbados’ economy is far from frictionless…
(Read: there are already far too many empty rentals available on the market here in Bim for those who have invested in such to expect a return greater than their cost of money. And yet the prices have not dropping far enough to get thirty-something Bajan children to leave Mommy’s home….)
Hog Squeal // June 23, 2009 at 2:51 PM
David asked:
“It is known immigrants legal and illegal share apartment/house space and share rents. If illegals go back wouldn’t demand and supply kick in? Wouldn’t rents be forced down?”
+++++++++++++++++++
No, but it could constibite significantly to a deepening of the recession.
“In fact, as a small, open economy, financial distress in the global economy will inevitably be transmitted to our domestic economic space through reductions in tourism, international business and remittances, among others.
These developments will affect Government’s revenue and, by extension, the implementation of public policies and programmes.”
Deprting Guyanese means significant reduced spending. See what I tell you that thompson and the DLP do not know waht they are doing.
Now – and the OECS have not retaliated yet by downgrading the amount they spend on Barbadian goods, anually, yet.
So brace yourself.
Perhaps the DLP is only beginning to understand what the BLP was saying all along.
Perhaps only now is the DLP and its bloggers beginning to see the connection between population ageing, the NIS Fund, the economy; labour policy, immigration policy and agricultural policy.
For sure, DLP bloggers seem to be very slowly getting it.
Keep going!!!
Hog Squeal // June 23, 2009 at 2:54 PM
You do not need Guyanese leaving to push down rents.
All that is necessary is for Fruendel Stuart and Michael lashley to bring the Rent Control Act, they promised in September 2008 – would be debated in Parliament soon.
livinginbarbados // June 23, 2009 at 2:56 PM
@David
Chris Haswell makes the same point on rentals.
Lest someone goes off and thinks distraction is at play, the economic consequences are important (moreso when activity is already sluggish and incomes are under pressure), and those who think that numbers are not relevant/important have not grasped that the magnitude of possible negative effects are of course much greater if the numbers affected are large.
livinginbarbados // June 23, 2009 at 3:02 PM
@Hog Squeal
What little commentary I have heard from landlords, including last week, was very resistant to rent control. So, don’t hold your breath.
Hog Squeal // June 23, 2009 at 3:09 PM
@ LIB
What did landlords say?
Still, do you agree that with reduced spending by 30,000 Guyanese, Barbados (now being deported by the plane loads) our economy will be plunged into even greater recession, while our national food security plan seems in peril?
livinginbarbados // June 23, 2009 at 3:17 PM
@Hog Squeal
It was a landlord on BT, who argued that government should set standards, and landlords should aim to provide decent accommodation. But government had no business telling an investor what price he needed to recoup his investment. He lamented that many who had invested in rental accommodation for Cricket World Cup were still dealing with those losses. If I recall correctly, he pointed out the importance of migrant workers to the market.
I agree that there must be a loss of spending power and that there are several sectors that will be hit much harder. Again, one commentator on BT today referred to that, mentioning ‘distributive trades’ (aka retail shops).
My suspicion is that the agricultural sector will get its act together to regularise as many people as possible, and also agree on some form of ‘foreign labour scheme”.
Hog Squeal // June 23, 2009 at 3:22 PM
Imagine that!
The US Economy is Coming out of Recession while Barbados if heading further down the pathway to poverty.
++++++++++++++++++
“The Obama administration has given the go-ahead for ten of America’s biggest banks to repay $68bn (£43bn) in emergency bail-out money after judging that the institutions have recovered sufficient stability to survive without a financial crutch from taxpayers.
JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley and Bank of New York Mellon are among those handing back government money pumped into top Wall Street firms to avert financial collapse at the height of last year’s meltdown in the banking industry.
The ability of the banks to return funds has been widely greeted as a sign that Wall Street is edging towards a recovery from its most traumatic financial crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s. But the US treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner, echoed analysts and industry insiders by warning that the reconstruction of the banking sector is far from complete.
“These repayments are an encouraging sign of financial repair, but we still have work to do,” said Geithner.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jun/09/tarp-us-banks-financial-crisis
Hog Squeal // June 23, 2009 at 3:25 PM
Livinginbarbados wrote:
“My suspicion is that the agricultural sector will get its act together to regularise as many people as possible, and also agree on some form of ‘foreign labour scheme”.
++++++++++++++++
Lost of Guyanese labour in agriculture will lead to reduced production or higher input cost (labour) hence higher prices due to reduced production or an attempt to recover overheads.
You just wait and see!
livinginbarbados // June 23, 2009 at 3:34 PM
@David/Hog Squeal
Allow me to digress with Hog Squeal.
Don’t believe all you read in the press! Some see green shoots, others see wilting leaves…
See Canada (because of its importance for Barbados’ tourist): now see recession there will be as deep as in US, http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=anKkA8gdr1No
Reports from EU policy makers now do not see a real upturn until 2011.
World Bank on Sunday put its forecast of recession in 2009 as being deeper, saying that the world economy will contract 2.9 percent — down from its March estimate of a 1.7 percent drop. The World Bank said then that a 1.7 percent contraction would be the worst on record.
Just context.
Hog Squeal // June 23, 2009 at 3:39 PM
@ LIB
you make a sound point based on the evidence you presented but the Americans are no longer talking about recession. Certainly not Obama and the Treasury Secretary.
They are talking about recovery.
Look at what they are saying about their unemployment numbers.
livinginbarbados // June 23, 2009 at 3:45 PM
@David (again due deference)
@Hog Squeal
Spin. We may be at a bottom but that’s about it.
The unemployment data published last week were cooked, and not consistent with previous period. When made consistent, long term unemployed ROSE not fell as the data suggested.
Banks still aren’t lending
1/3 of house sales are foreclosures; that’s not a sign of recovery.
Hog Squeal // June 23, 2009 at 3:54 PM
Hold a minute, I do not know where this is going. her is what my research leads me:
The US unemployment rate edged up to a 25-year high of 9.4% last month as employers shed 345,000 jobs, although economist took comfort in signs that the rate of erosion in the workforce slowed down sharply.
++++++++++++++++++
“Non-farm payroll figures released by the US commerce department revealed that the headline rate of unemployment rose by half a percentage point from April’s figure of 8.9%.
However, the number of jobs disappearing from the economy was the lowest since September. Job losses significantly dropped in comparison with revised figures of 652,000 and 504,000 for March and April.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jun/05/us-jobless-figures-green-shoots
StudentX // June 23, 2009 at 4:00 PM
There can be no doubt that by deporting large numbers of immigrants economic activity will decrease. The number of empty rental units will increase, consumption will fall and employment will increase.
Think about the alternative. Keep all of the immigrants and use up all your foreign exchange to maintain them in Barbados.
In a year or two Barbados could be facing devaluation. It is better that we have temporary unemployment and a stable currency. The safer strategy is to reduce imports by reducing the numbers now living in Barbados
Straight talk // June 23, 2009 at 4:04 PM
This duplicitous trio, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley and Bank of New York Mellon, are repaying bailout funds, they never needed, purely to take advantage of the next scam, government guaranteed toxic asset purchases.
All bailed out banks are barred from this copper-bottomed trough.
StudentX // June 23, 2009 at 4:33 PM
There can be no doubt that by deporting large numbers of immigrants economic activity will decrease. The number of empty rental units will increase, consumption will fall and employment will increase.
Think about the alternative. Keep all of the immigrants and use up all your foreign exchange to maintain them in Barbados.
In a year or two Barbados could be facing devaluation. It is better that we have temporary unemployment and a stable currency. The safer strategy is to reduce imports by reducing the numbers now living in Barbados.
Yardbroom // June 23, 2009 at 5:02 PM
I made the comment some days past that numbers of illegal immigrants are irrelevant…to the Laws of Barbados.
We have a democratically elected Government carrying out the wishes of the majority of its electorate.
A sovereign nation acting according to its Laws and what it believes is in the best long term interest of its people…that is democracy.
What Singapore or Hong Kong does is irrelevant.
In many so called developed countries one illegal immigrant – from any country – is summarily deported daily. People do not make the nonsensical statement…he/she is only one.
We have an effort here – by some – to constantly change the area of combat, because the measures taken by the DLP Government are so watertight there is no legitimate or substantive case to oppose them.
Straight talk // June 23, 2009 at 5:04 PM
StudentX:
I have some doubt about the decrease in economic activity.
The majority of deportees would have held down jobs, illegal ones maybe, but still paying enough to support their lifestyle.
Their jobs have not been sent back to Guyana and are now available to the increasing pool of Bajan unemployed.
Hopefully these jobs would become legitimised and contribute to NIS and Tax.
Maybe even at a higher wage rate, if some of the theories about exploitation are true.
So a win-win situation may occur, less unemployment benefits paid out and more revenue for the GoB along with the wage still in circulation.
livinginbarbados // June 23, 2009 at 5:39 PM
@Straight Talk
“I have some doubt about the decrease in economic activity…”
The outcome must depend on why illegals were preferred to either legal migrants or locals. I see at least 3 scenarios.
1. If it’s a matter of wages/terms and conditions of service, both legal migrants (if allowed to enter and work) and Barbadians may be tempted to offer themselves because jobs seem scarcer now. But does that mean that once economic conditions improve the current situation will reappear?
2. If it’s a matter of skills mismatch (as was evident during Cricket World Cup), then very little will change for locals, who cannot retrain instantaneously; legal migrants with the right skills may then be more likely.
3. If it’s about unethical behaviour and/or illicit activities, the ‘unholy alliance’ perhaps works best with willing illegals: legals should not get approval to come to work in illicit activities, and we have been led to believe that the stock of Barbadians wanting to be involved in these activties will remain small.
While others may not feel the need to look overseas for guidance it’s worth seeing how such attempts to reverse illegal immigration have worked or not.
The Scout // June 23, 2009 at 6:54 PM
I’m sick and tired of hearing crap all day. The simple matter of fact is that my P.M in an effort to regularise the influx of immigrants into Barbados has stated his policy, in true Erskine Sandiford words” who don,t like it can lump it.” Pay me and I will help get these illegals out of the country and donate the money to some of those families that these illegals empoverished.
Jay // June 23, 2009 at 7:45 PM
@Yardbroom,maybe citing some of the laws in these countries could prove a point.
Many of the ‘regionalists’ dictate that these countries are able to get over their woes from an ECONOMIC standpoint but from a LAW & ORDER standpoint these countries have severe penalties when it comes to illegal immigration.
From my understanding of current Barbados procedure when it comes to illegal immigration is that all relevant authorities are doing the appropriate job which includes detention,verify illegal status & then deport to appropriate country of citizenship.
In Singapore,however one can be BEATEN by the government with a CANE,FINED Thousands of dollars & Jailed between 3 months-2 years.
http://www.singapore-window.org/80322re.htm
Hong Kong is NOW apart of CHINA but still have their own immigration laws & routinely deport mainland Chinese.The same analogy can be used for Barbados just because we’re apart of the Caricom grouping does NOT mean we can’t deport Guyanese Caricom nationals.
Hopi // June 23, 2009 at 7:48 PM
@LIB……Do you have a direct phone# to Golding? I’d like to ask him why he’s depriving Jamaica of such great ‘intellect’ as yourself. Here you are, fronting in Barbados, mesmerising the simpletons with your wide range of noledge and still we can’t get it. Maybe we hed too hard. Wha ya tink?
[whey de lender get $40B from?].
Ruel Daniels // June 23, 2009 at 7:58 PM
Keane Gibson on Benschop Radio at Guyanaobservernews.org, and she opened with a defence of Barbados’ crackdown on illegal immigrants.
Gibson is the first person to go on air and attempt to explain the fear barbadians feel over the prospect of their society becoming like Guyana, Trinidada and Tobago, or Fiji.
livinginbarbados // June 23, 2009 at 8:20 PM
@Hopi
One of the humbling experiences about coming to Barbados, with its population of 280,000 or so people, is that having pulled the wool over the eyes of millions of supposedly intelligent people in schools and universities and bamboozled the heads and staff of supposedly well-run and well-respected institutions in the public and private sector around the world for nearly 40 years, within two years, I have been exposed as a total charlatan. That heartens me, now that I can benefit from the insights and wisdom that have been hidden here. I regret those lost years and I am in your debt.
Rumplestilskin // June 23, 2009 at 8:44 PM
Economic activity is decreasing and will continue to decrease, largely as a result of a changed situation internationally.
In both North America and Europe, spending power of individuals and companies, has been reduced due to lower liquidity and credit availability.
This situation will not be alleviated anytime soon. Indeed, the tendency will be two-sided.
One, for individuals to reduce their own spending, resulting from both the shock of job loss and from now realising their dependence on credit and its ramifications.
Two, from the limitations on credit availability both inter-bank and inter-company as well as being made available to individuals, on both an absolute basis and on an individual assessment basis.
So, we have a long-haul ahead and there is no magic bullet for this recession nor any sudden improvement to ‘old levels’.
Old ‘good days’ are finished, we have a new scenario to deal with.
Hence, any expectation that our economy will not be affected by the international scenario is baseless and foolhardy.
Indeed, over three years ago, on these blogs, this was the exact scenario predicted, begging for limitation in spending and government debt, at that time.
The time has now come for the chickens to roost. No surprise here.
What is necessary now, is to try to improve the social environment for Barbadians and resident guests.
No one said that there cannot be guests of this country, merely that these persons be documented.
One unfortunate side-effect of the past 15 years, has been that there has been little development to enhance the lot of the average Barbadian.
Argument to suggest that our standard of living is so high is incompatible with the reality that the average Barbadian cannot afford a 5,000 sq foot land lot and house at this time.
This is due to the ridiculous price inflation in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s on land.
Yes, the land is owned by a few and this has serious ramifications.
To suggest that this is incompatible with the worldwide scenario of recession is irrelevant, considering that the few hold tightly onto their acquisitions, thus creating a strangehold on the supply, therefore no normal demand and supply situation can prevail.
To suggest that much of the ailments affecting our society today are as a result of the policies of the current Government is not only incorrect, but odious, reeking of party politics.
I have neither a beef nor a candle for the current administration, but merely seek to hope that good governance can keep our nation moving forward.
Therefore, arguments based on party politics irritate me, I prefer to address the facts and the solutions.
Peace and Live Strong
Anonymous // June 23, 2009 at 9:59 PM
Rumplestilskin wrote
“One unfortunate side-effect of the past 15 years, has been that there has been little development to enhance the lot of the average Barbadian’.
Well one unfortunate side-effect was a significant drop in the unemployment rate and a tremendous increase in home ownership (check the increase in the mortgage portfolios of local banks, credit unions and insurance companies).
And then he wrote in the same post:
“Therefore, arguments based on party politics irritate me, I prefer to address the facts and the solutions.”
I can only wonder at if he kept a straight face as he typed.
Hopi // June 23, 2009 at 10:40 PM
@LIB……I feel your pain after being exposed as a charlatan on only 166 sq miles, but luckily, you still get the opportunity to recocile your self-deception. Don’t feel bad because your’e in ‘good’ company with all the other ‘learned’ academecians who were also woefully indoctrinated on the putrid of the establishment. Let it be known that for the last 3000 years this earthly realm has been baffled with nothing but bullshit, hence we are at the precipice of self-destruction and none of you ‘learned’ ones don’t know how to prevent it simply because you regurgitate the same catastrophic lies and dogma, day in and day out. So don’t wallow in self-pity, just stop blowing smoke up ya arse and seek self-knowledge.
Hotep!
David // June 24, 2009 at 12:29 AM
History written on this matter in 10 years will make for interesting reading.
Jay // June 24, 2009 at 12:39 AM
How odd,Trinidad is now considered the murder capital in Caricom yet P.M Manning is adamant about a political union & economic union.He is warning the region that the crime rate will increase due to drugs,gangs & MASS. ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.Is this the so-called ’soft approach’ he was talking about & warning that it could get worse ?
Yet,some want to make it easier for Caricom nationals to move across borders & promote Free-movement of ALL nationals within Caricom .Have the other Caricom leaders & ‘regionalists’ gone absolutely INSANE.Barbados is being asked to be more laxed with immigration policy as it pertains to other Caricom nationals yet some don’t seem to understand the security risk associated with this.[e.g.Free movement of crime & drugs]
http://www.trinidadexpress.com/index.pl/article_news?id=161495898
“Trinidad and Tobago and the rest of the Caribbean Community (Caricom) are under threat from criminal activity which is set to grow worse because of the impact of the ongoing international financial crisis.
This is the stern warning Prime Minister Patrick Manning gave to the region as he called on all Caricom member states to come together to deal with the crime threat since “the war cannot be won alone”.
He did so in St Kitts on Monday night after he told members of the ruling party on Sunday mass illegal immigration due to the worsening state of economies in the region and an increase in drug activity pose a serious threat to this country as he promoted regional unification as a solution.
“We are under threat. There is no doubt about it,” Manning said.
While delivering an address during the opening ceremony of the Caricom Conference on Violence Prevention in St Kitts, Manning said a large part of this threat is linked to the high incidence of youths across the region who are either the perpetrators or victims of crime due to the increase in criminal gang warfare.
“Youth violence is a high-priority, high-visibility concern across the Caribbean,” Manning said in his capacity as the chairman of the Caricom Prime Ministerial sub-committee on Security.
Manning is also the chairman of the Trinidad and Tobago National Security Council and spoke of the impact of the criminal gangs in certain parts of this country which have pulled many youths into the deadly cycle of gun violence, illegal drugs and turf wars.
“In Trinidad and Tobago, for example, gang/turf war has in recent years become the single most prominent contributor to violent crimes and murder. So important is this issue that Trinidad and Tobago has accepted to serve as one of the Vice Chairs of the Working Group on Criminal Gangs at the Committee on Hemispheric Security of the Organisation of American States (OAS),” Manning said.
Manning said the Caricom states must deal with the illegal drug trade which is at the heart of the crime threat and the guns that accompany the narcotics being transhipped through the region as he boasted that members states have “most admirably, been able to stave off the corrupting influences of organised crime on our institutions and society.”
“There are no narco-democracies in Caricom,” Manning said.”
Rumplestilskin // June 24, 2009 at 5:10 AM
Anon wrote”Well one unfortunate side-effect was a significant drop in the unemployment rate and a tremendous increase in home ownership (check the increase in the mortgage portfolios of local banks, credit unions and insurance companies)”
The ‘unemployment rate’, as you know is a fudge statistic, unreliable.
The mortgage balances that you speak of, have two inputs other than number of mortgages. One can also be ominous.
The first is price inflation. If housing is much more expensive than ten years ago, then obviously, the absolute mortgage balance nationwide will increase, as the value of new houses or houses transferred will be disproportionately greater than paydowns.
Further, to properly examine mortgage balances as an impact on the social environment, what is the incidence of these mortgages, who has these mortgages, what percentage of population and what is their respective wealth?
Finally, it could also be, that many have found need to increase their current mortgages by either second mortgages or refinancing, which does not signal an improvement, but a problem.
So, throwing statistics out, can be read both ways.
We all know the reality, go into Broad Street and ask anyone if they can afford to buy a 3,000 square foot property to put a house on.
And yes, I kept a straight face, I have no desire to mislead, as many do, so my conscience is very clear, thanks.
Peace
Rumplestilskin // June 24, 2009 at 5:16 AM
David,
I quite agree, we are all entitled to our views, my own perception is that if the right decisions are not made now, when the pot boils, we all will get cooked.
Nevertheless, while we try to get things done here in Barbados, the international political scene is as much a mess, propably moreso.
Statements issued by Governments internationally, must be taken with more than a grain of salt, while we spend time deciphering motives for their actions.
Nevertheless, I believe that as long as we walk with our conscience, then we will follow a good path.
Peace
mash up & buy back // June 24, 2009 at 7:34 AM
Fellow Bloggers
Guyanese roxanne Gibbs is at it again in Todays Nation.
Her attitude and that of SOME her afro guyanese counterparts is why I tread cautiously in trying to speak out against the indo guyanese bad treatment of afro guyanese in guyana.
We have never seen Roxanne Gibbs use her position as Executive Editor of the Nation newspaper to highlight the travesty that is taking place against her fellow afro guyanese by President basdeo Jagdeo and his indian clansmen.
It took Dr Kean Gibson – UWI lecturer to alert us of these happenings,as well as the U.N. minority report which was done last year and showed discriminationa against the balcks in guyana by the indian Jagdeo administration.
Yet we have roxanne gibbs day in and day out stirring up strife by repeatedly seeking out in the starbrok newspaper or where ever she can find it persons who have something negative to say about Barbados and reprinting or publishing it in the Nation newspaper.
Today we see yet again roxanne gibbs using the opportunity afforded her here in barbados to head our leading daily neswpaper – to be vindictive,and to try and damage the reputation of barbados and bajans across this region and the wider world with the printing of those 2 articles by wickham and the jamaican observer.
How else do you explain roxanne gibbs who has the final say on what goes in to the newspaper, over the past couple months daily reproducing articles from the starbroek news of unsubtantiated allegations from illegal guyanese in Barbados who were deported?
Wouldn’t these deported guyanese be angry and have an axe to grind?
How do you explain roxanne gibbs even up to today,making the pages of her newspaper available for the most vitrolic and distateful bajan bashing by caribbean ( but mostly guyanese) commentators/columnists against the new barbados immigration policy.
Is roxanne gibbs guilty of biting the hand that fed her and continues to feed her?
Today we have a negative editorial from the jamaican observer.
We also have the pro-migrant article by peter wickham.
Where is that well written argument in favour of the barbados policy,which was done by Lindsay Holder and published over 2 days in the Advocate newspaper?
Will that ever see the light of day in the Nation newspaper?
For the past 3 to 4 years while this debate has been raging,why haven’t we seen on a regular basis the stories of bajans who have been hard done by guyanese?
We know roxanne gibbs is a close associate of mia mottley,but I believe this goes beyond her politics and ‘friendship’, and really is a matter of defending her homeland guyana at all cost.
We see the same in frank dasilva who up to about 2 years ago was saying repeatedly in public that barbados cannot afford to have an influx in this country of guyanese migrant labour which will drive down the wages of barbadian wage earners.
Is he coming out in defence of his DLP position now ?I don’t think so.
His feelings for his compatriots from his homeland seem to come first,hence his deafening silence in defence of the prime minister.
The damage that persons like annalee davis,ricky singh ,roxanne gibbs,mia mottley,norman faria,norman girvan,george brathwaite,owen arthur and the like have done is already reaping fruit.
We are now hearing persons calling in on the radio as well as telling others of stories of bajans visiting guyana being ill treated.
I always knew that we were envied and despied in some quarters in the caribbean,and that these very persons did not wish us well.
What I did not know that right in our midst we were rearing poisonous snakes to bite us and try to destroy us.
May God help us all!
Anonymous // June 24, 2009 at 7:38 AM
“The ‘unemployment rate’, as you know is a fudge statistic, unreliable.”
So based on your labour survey you know this?
As to your much speculation on mortgage portfolios, the fact is that the absolute number of mortgages held increased significantly.
Without intending to draw personal attention to myself, I am a civil servant (at the lowest graduate scale), with young kids, and a wife who is a secretary (not a company secretary, one who types and answers the phone) and was able to acquire a home on more than 3000 sq ft some 5 years ago.
This required us to establish our priorities in life and to cut our cloth to suit our pockets.
Camper // June 24, 2009 at 9:08 AM
I’m reading this blog for the first time and commented elsewhere.
1. I did not vote for the Dems and never have. Truth to be told, I did not vote last time. But I will vote for David Thompson’s candidate even if it is Ding Ding because I have detected in his policies: consistency, clarity of purpose and determination. Most of all love of country and people.
He introduced a new policy (which the Bees in one breath criticises and its agent Hog Squeal now says was theirs but they did not have time to implement! lol, lol, lol what a Joker!) and that is that. No talk, just action. I have not witnessed that kind of leadership for a long time.
2. He went directly to the BWA and addressed the workers – without the BWU – and took their questions. A Barbadian PM asking to speak with the workers? Christ, I have not seen that in 30 years!
3. I see a man genuinely caring about our young people – protecting them and trying to lift their standards. My daughter is at St. Giles and is proud of her PM simple. She met him last week at Ilaro Court. Yes, along with the children from the Ivy, Licorish Village, My Lords Hill and the disabled.
All of this in one month? That’s right. This country needed David Thompson 10 years ago.
Leadership in times of trouble comes from both the head and the heart.
Trained Economist // June 24, 2009 at 9:32 AM
Some evidence please:
1. Has there been an increase in the number of deportations from Barbados , and a change in the tactics used by the immigration department? What is the evidence or are we to be guided by a few stories?
2. What are the migration policies of other Caricom nations? How different are they from the Barbados policy?
mash up & buy back // June 24, 2009 at 9:37 AM
I was filled with laughter when I read Ricky singh’s column in today’s Trinidad Express.
Singh’s inflated view of himself reflects clearly why he was so diasppointed with this new DLP administration’s immigration policy despite his public protestations and ‘busings in his columns and elsewhere.
So he has taken to now living in Trinidad and writing glowingly of manning’s comment that trinidad does not treat its illegals in a bad way.
Therefore he seems to have been blinded by manning’s latest broadside and he writes this today:
“When I wrote in this space last wednesday about the lack of any structural consultations at the local level by Manning on the economic union,I half expected him (Manning) to signal a willingness to correct this defeciency durinh his address at last Sunday’s PNM convention.
This did not happen,instead Manning got so emotionally caught up in his invitation to that captive audience that he (Manning) was warning of ‘mass illegal migration’,and related conflicts if regional economic and political union failed to materialise.
Ricky singh obviously thought that the influence he has with basdeo jagdeo and ralph gonsalves could be replicated with David thompson and patrick Manning.
He now seems to be in a state of shock.Lol.
You are dealing with wily,astute politicians here singh,so wake up and smell the coffee.
You do not figure in the larger scheme of things.
Enjoy your stay in trinidad – the land of crime and kidnapping.
Hog Squeal // June 24, 2009 at 9:58 AM
Camper wrote:
“consistency, clarity of purpose and determination.”
+++++++++++++++++++
Seems like Thompson is trying desperately to copy Owen Arthur. Afterall, it was Arthur who said that there must be:
(b) Clarity of purpose, and
(b) Certainty of incidence in public policy.
Unfortunately, those standards were not reflected when Thompson intorduced his cell phone tax; his $25 bicycle tax, or his costly – free bus rides (even though popular)
Notice how all the things the DLP criticised in Opposition, they are now doing. Then – why was the government changed.
The DLP said that the economy was not important and that they were going to concentrate on social issues.
Well, the economy is in crisis (a deep private sector led recession) while on the social side, thousands have lost their jobs; crime is on the increase, the DLP is creating dysfunctional families and there is social chaos.
As a result, and in share desperation to change his image and manufacture grassroots appeal – here is what David Thompson will do in the coming weeks and months, to also compensate for the unnecessary hardship he is imposing on Barbadians, effortlessly:
(a) Instead of leading barbados out of recession and doing work for his pay – he will visit schools and take pictures with school children.
(b) he will buy fruits and vegetable from old ladies along the road
(c) he will visit the supermarket and push the trolley.
(d) he will invite fish sellers, vendors, taxi men and vagrants to visit Illaro Court.
(e) he will visit every house fire and every community where there is flodding or where water settles.
(f) he will use children, the elderly and persons with disabilities for photo ops.
(g) he will visit the QEH and senior citizens homes and shake old ladies hands. Of course his paid photographer will be there to capture the moment.
(i) He will visit sports teams, football matches and summer camps.
(j) he will hire a photographer at taxpers expense to take photos of him.
Here is what David Thompson will not do:
(a) Reduce taxes
(b) Anger the IMF
(c) Manage the economy effectively
(d) Reduce the cost of living
(e) Create jobs
(f) Treat non national humanely, except for europeans and chinese.
(g) Stop running the country by gimmicks and stunts.
(h) Stop price gouging Barbadians on land tax and petroleum prices.
The DLP is not a government on the side of the people, but a government which is taking advantage of the people.
Camper // June 24, 2009 at 12:47 PM
Hog Squeal, you are obviously in awe of the man.
Anonymous // June 24, 2009 at 1:34 PM
Camper I concur!
StudentX // June 24, 2009 at 2:24 PM
Are we discussing the likelihood of increased crime in Barbados as a result of the recessionary conditions?
My instincts tell me that we are heading into a crime wave. Do not mind the official statistics. There is ever possibility that as more persons become unemployed, crime will increase.
lholder // June 24, 2009 at 3:23 PM
Hello Folks,
Today I submitted two articles for publication in the daily press in Barbados. The articles were submitted to both the Nation Newspaper and the Barbados Advocate.
One of the articles deals with the statements attributed to Professor Clive Thomas, formerly of the University of Guyana (I think he has retired), and carried in today’s Nation Newspaper under the title, ‘Professor Cries Down Government Policy’. As you may have guessed correctly, some of the statements made by Professor Thomas are untrue. What a disinformation campaign!
Based on the feedback I have had from the Barbados Advocate, the two articles, along with one submitted earlier, should appear soon, probably in the coming Sunday’s edition.
With regard to queries why my earlier article was not published in the Nation Newspaper, the facts are as follows. The article was submitted to the Nation Newspaper first, but after much to and fro, I was asked to collapse it into two installments of 750 words each. Fortunately for me, I had submitted the article to the Barbados Advocate before I received the final response from the Nation Newspaper, and the Advocate agreed to publish the article in full.
For those 2005 comments made by David Commissiong on immigration policy in Barbados, thanks to the blogger, I think it is Adrian, who reproduced them.
Based on calls I have received from some individuals in Barbados, it is important that we keep the debate going so that the current Barbados Government will stay on course and successively implement its managed migration policy.
Stay tuned!
Trained Economist // June 24, 2009 at 3:31 PM
lholder you can post them on BU as well you know.
mash up & buy back // June 24, 2009 at 3:31 PM
Hello Lindsay Holder.
Welcome to the BU Family.
We here at BU enjoyed your contribution on the immigration debate.
Please keep fighting and defending our country.
With Thanks
Mash Up.
Negroman // June 24, 2009 at 5:29 PM
Camper
I detected in Prime Minister David Thompson the genuineness in his efforts to uplift the lives of ordinary Barbadians.I must admit I was very critical of David Thompson and his administration within the last year or so because I thought he was pussyfooting with this immigration issue.I thought he didn’t had the courage to effectively deal with the situation.I was pleasantly surprised.
David I must concede and I must agree with you that maybe the government needs a public relations programme to put its position on this immigration issue.After listening to a caller on the Brass Tack programme yesterday Tuesdy 23,2009 he convinced me that a PR programme must be employ by the government to offset the negative comments on this new immigration policy.
I believe the government should use its agencies such as Government Information Service,Caribbean Broadcasting Authority and other means to put its position on the immigration issue.
The ploy that is being use by the detractors to give the impression that the government is heartless and ruthless in its pursuit of illegal immigrants is gaining momentum.
I believe the immigration department should come and report to the nation and give up updates on its operation.The stories of non-nationals being taken off buses,being rounded up at work sites or on the streets must either be verify or deny by the immigration department.I have no problem with the immigration department doing these things,but the impression that it is operating in a ruthless manner must be challenge.
We must ever be vigilant and we must not allow the detractors & nuisances such as musty Norman Faria,the political cadaver David Comissiong,the funny guy Peter Wickham and the rest to distract us.
This country must be rid of all illegals especially the Indo-Guyanese hum bugs including musty Norman Faria
Hog Squeal // June 24, 2009 at 5:32 PM
The DLP never, ever, ever had a “mamaged migration policy.”
In fact, those word: “Managed Migration,” are not mentioned in any DLP publication for the past 30 years.
“Managed Migration,” is progressive Barbados Labour Party policy.
The Charteristics of the DLP are:
(a) Increase taxes
(b) Pleasing the IMF
(c) Inhumane deportation policy.
(d) pain, suffering and economic hardship for Barbadians.
(e) Gimmicks, political stunts and distraction tactics.
That the DLP to talk about managed migration would mean that its inhumane policy approach is being adjusted by stealth.
If it now is – then Mia Mottley, Prof. Girvan, Dr. Joseph, Sir Ronald Saunders, regional Head and scholars have been heard and must be congratulated.
With such heat from regional intellectuals, such as Mia Mottley and professor Girvan, it is not surprising that the DLP is now talking about “managed migration,” which is superior BLP policy.
DLP – it is too late to apologise — the damage is already done.
Hog Squeal // June 24, 2009 at 5:35 PM
That the DLP “would now talk about managed migration” – means that its “inhumane deportation policy approach,” is being adjusted by stealth.
Jay // June 24, 2009 at 5:35 PM
Hello & Welcome,Mr. Holder & bravo on such a well thought out & timely article.I look forward to your future commentary on this very important issue of immigration.
Hog Squeal // June 24, 2009 at 5:38 PM
Guyanese are being rounded up like cattle and deported by the plane loads, yet unemployment is still 10.4% and highest among men – something not seen in Barbados for over 25 years.
Guyanese are being rounded up like cattle and deported by the plane loads, yet there is still grid lock on the roads.
Guyanese are being rounded up like cattle and deported by the plane loads and the cost of living is still high
Guyanese are being rounded up like cattle and deported by the plane loads but Barbados’ credit rating has been downgraded.
Guyanese are being rounded up like cattle and deported by the plane loads and someone is still being shot almost every night in this country.
Guyanese are being rounded up like cattle and deported by the plane loads yet Four Seasons remains close.
Guyanese are being rounded up like cattle and deported by the plane loads and the DLP is still price gouging on petroleum products, land tax and soon – water rates, “just to please the IMF.”
While DLP bloggers focus on deportation, Barbados lost over $700 million in foreign reserves between March 2008 and March 2009.
While DLP bloggers focus on deportation – cost of living increases and the US economy is coming out of recession, while Barbados is going in.
While DLP bloggers focus on deportation, the DLP continues to punish Barbadians by confiscating their wealth through high taxation.
While DLP bloggers focus on deportation, people cannot get an NHC house because they do not have a job and therefore cannot qualify for a mortgage.
Guyanese are being rounded up like cattle and deported by the plane loads but Camps are being administered on “a rolling basis” (spending gone wild) and yet – people are not being paid.
How is that possible
lholder // June 24, 2009 at 6:48 PM
In the recent blog I posted, ’successively’ and ‘mamaged’ in the last paragraph should be replaced with ’successfully’ and ‘managed’, respectively.
My apologies for the errors.
Ready-Done // June 24, 2009 at 6:50 PM
@ lholder we ent that critical.
Jay // June 24, 2009 at 6:56 PM
Hogsqueal,since you’re so pro-BLP….
I wonder why didn’t the BLP party offer CSME as a referendum to the Barbados public ?
Also,What if the current DLP administration offered there ‘managed migration’ policy as a referendum what do you think the results would be ?
The one thing that I have noticed throughout this entire CSME ordeal is that NOT one Government in Caricom has offered a referendum on such an important & binding issue on the people but from all the clamoring I’ve heard so far from family,friends & neigbours they all approve of the current ‘managed migration’ policy.
Straight talk // June 24, 2009 at 7:17 PM
Hogsqueal:
Tell us, and the US public, why, given all the indicators, you think the US economy is coming out of recession.
Your analysis is essential for us to judge the weight we should give to your persistent posts.
David // June 24, 2009 at 7:18 PM
@Lindsay Holder
Welcome to the BU family as suggested feel free to use BU by way of comment or submission via email to get your message out.
@Negroman
The government needs to respond to the PR hatchet job being descended on Barbados. We listened with interest to Prime Minister Skerritt of Dominica making the point that CSME countries need to educate citizens about rights to travel under CSME. We heard the same caller to the talk show you did.
David // June 24, 2009 at 7:20 PM
@Hogsquel
Are your views those of the leader of the opposition?
Camper // June 24, 2009 at 7:27 PM
I salute you Mr. Holder. I appreciate your explanations on the issue. You produced two excellent articles.
As to the public relations, I think that sometimes you have to let people talk. Negroman, I am sure that Ricky Singh is stirring this up. But it can’t last forever.
A man at immigration told me today that they have not sent back one Guyanese for a whole week!
I am with the Prime Minister of Barbados on this issue 100 percent. He has my full support and, if it is for this issue alone, my vote too.
I remember my grandfather telling me he was an Adams man but Barrow came along and when he saw the leadership Barrow was giving it changed him for life.
I have had my experiences and I thank David Thompson for leading this country. Not following.
Straight talk // June 24, 2009 at 7:28 PM
David:
To believe we are in an economic community, we have to believe we can economically operate within such an entity.
If it takes an average Bajan’s weekly take home pay to even fly to our “partners”, how the heck can we develop a single space.
I suggest it will remain the pipedream of the elite and politicians (not forgetting the reluctantly included musicians and journos) until inter-regional links are affordable for all.
Until then it’s just a pompasetting talking shop.
Camper // June 24, 2009 at 7:30 PM
Sorry, BU, but ignore Hog Squeal. Let him talk. He can’t help but provide all the information that the Dees will need in due course.
His mouth is too full. He has too much bottled up inside him and still can’t get it out. It will burst.
Anonymous // June 24, 2009 at 7:50 PM
Camper
I disagree strongly.
The DLP never seems to understand how to utilise public relations properly.
Right now Annalee davis and ricky singh are going through the whole of the caribbean spreading dangerous lies about barbados and illegal guyanese;
David thompson needs to speak firmly and with strong conviction on this matter whenever he is interviewed on this,whether at home or overseas.
Right now thompson and his cabinet are too laid back.
The lies are taking hold across the region.
The DLP needs to retreat for a day and come up with a systematic response which their agents and persons defending the government must keep repeating and hammering.
Never forget Barbados who is doing dirty on you and giving you a bad name throughout the region;the BLP,ricky singh,annalee davis,and others.
DLP go out there and defend your policy,and DON’T LET ME HEAR YOU SOUNDING APOLOGETIC NOR DEFENSIVE.
NEVER RETREAT,NEVER EVER.
BAJANS WOULD NOT LIKE THAT.
lholder // June 24, 2009 at 8:04 PM
Jay,
I share your thoughts about a referendum on the freedom of movement issue. Every effort should be made to have it placed on the political agenda, even though we may be fighting against the tide. For sure, there is one goal that we must accomplish, and that is to ensure that the Government of Barbados does not go ahead with the implementation of the freedom of movement priciple with effect from the beginning of next year.
Straight talk // June 24, 2009 at 8:27 PM
You wanna restrict my freedom of movement?
Come again, massa.
Adrian Hinds // June 24, 2009 at 9:47 PM
Lindsay Holder:
….It was I that posted those comments. Welcome aboard Lindsay. Anything I can do to be of service please do not hesitate to ask.
Jay // June 25, 2009 at 1:05 AM
Hi Mr. Holder,I’m glad that we share the same perspective on Free-movement of all nationals.
I’m sure the new Secretariat from Guyana will use all the powers at his disposal over the next several months to pressure the Barbados Government on the free movement principle making it more difficult for any of us to bring common sense to the chaotic system we currently have in place.
I would also be extremely disappointed if the current Barbados Government relent in any form.It would be highly ironic that after all the deportations everyone could come back under free-movement the following year without Caricom taking into consideration the heavy burden that the elite economies in CSME could take,which also ironically comprise of mainly small islands.[E.g.St. Kitts,Antigua & Barbados]
I don’t think Barbados or Bajans are ready for complete Free-movement whether it is gang warfare from our Trinidadian neighbour,Marijuana from our St. Vincent neighbour,Human trafficking,Cocaine & racial hatred from our Guyana neighbour or prostitution from our Jamaican neighbour.I’m not saying that Barbados is NOT without its faults but it seems to me like complete implementation of CSME would only degrade our country not advance it in anyway & degrading Barbados’ current stature for some ‘One Caribbean ideal’ is lunacy without the necessary protections as it relates to small island states,their fragile economies & not to mention limits on free-movement as it pertains to already densely populated Caricom Member states.
What is also complete Lunacy is the fact that most of Caricom does not consider most Bajan concerns to be legitimate.I find it completely hypocritical that the current Caricom Secretariat from the Bahamas actually has the nerve to talk about a policy his country refuses to implement based on the fact his people were given a chance to voice their concerns.
I have no problem with the current implementation of Free movement as it relates to skilled nationals,but anything relating to CARIPASS,Guaranteed right to entry to a 6 month stay & finally Free-movement of all nationals would just be too much for any right thinking Bajan.
lholder // June 25, 2009 at 3:36 AM
Hello Adrian,
Your offer of assistance when needed is gratefully accepted. Keep up the good work.
Jay, your perspective on the unrestricted free movement of nationals of CARICOM member states is right on the ball. Not only you feel that way; see the below article by Dwyer Astaphan that fully supports your position. The article was copied from Norman Girvan’s blog.
livinginbarbados // June 25, 2009 at 5:10 AM
@LHolder
Thank you for sharing the piece by Astaphan. I have one major issue with what is written, and it is:
“We should note that the larger their number, the more difficult it is going to be for them to assimilate into societies of which they know little. So there will be an increased risk of them engaging in criminal activity, thus exacerbating an already awful crime situation in those countries.”
This has not been the history of migration. Yes, migrant inflows have been associated with higher crime in some instances, but not all, and it’s not just about number, but about composition. I am not an expert in this field, but my recollections from the wave of Caribbean migration to the UK from the 1950s is that crime was not a major problem early on. The crime problems started to emerge with the ‘2nd+ generation’, many of whom were of course no longer migrants and not alien to the country they lived in, but were in harder economic and social conditions, mainly in inner city areas.
A similar situation was more evident with the wave of Asian immigrants to the UK, after their expulsion from Kenya and Uganda, or from Pakistan, India and Bangladesh after civil strife there. Many of these were business people/merchants, and largely they moved to areas in high concentrations, but did not set off crime waves.
The US experience is similar, I think, if one looks across the range of migrants.
Put another way, do you, as someone with more working experience in this subject, believe that we see the inflow of migrants associated with peaking in crime?
I think the author’s “So” is not so.
Another point that the piece shows is that migration becomes a much bigger issue when the access to resources is much harder, during harder economic times particularly.
Finally, the piece highlights a major problem for developing countries (not just those in this region) in attracting resources they need (whether labour or capital). Generally, countries have attracted resources by offering ‘concessions’ (for investors, that means things like tax holidays, etc.), which put local businesses at a severe disadvantage. This preferential treatment can undermine a country more or at least as much as any so-called undesired inflow of migrants. History shows that the investors attracted by ’sweetners’ only stay as long as the concessions work for them and leave little behind that a country can use.
Food for thought.
Hog Squeal // June 25, 2009 at 9:36 AM
While DLP bloggers focus on deportation, the DLP goes to Parliament to either change the number of people who can serve on Boards or to change the word: “druggist” to “pharmacist.”
Had not for the Guyanese and the global financial crisis, the DLP would not now have anything to blame for the fact that it is not producing.
Since Guyanese are being rounded up like cattle and deported by the plane loads, more Barbadians should be getting jobs but the opposite is now true.
With the US economy rebounding, what will Thompson’s excuse be
when the Guyanese have all been deported?
With the Guyanese gone, everyone who wants a house will get one and everyone who wants a job will find one.
There will no longer be traffic jams; the cost of living will come down and the rain will stop falling so that the DLP will not have to refund tourists.
With the Guyanese gone, foreign investors will suddenly have confidence in the DLP; Swine Flue will disappear and Prime Minister Thompson will travel on LIAT!
Hog Squeal // June 25, 2009 at 9:42 AM
Camper // June 24, 2009 at 7:30 pm
Sorry, BU, but ignore Hog Squeal. Let him talk. He can’t help but provide all the information that the Dees will need in due course.
His mouth is too full. He has too much bottled up inside him and still can’t get it out. It will burst.
++++++++++++++++++++++
I suppose at some time BU will start discussion on the DLP’s pork barrel, slush fund: free Camps.
Why, because of freeness like Camps, Constituency Councils, free breakfast, free bus fare and so on – S&P has downgraded Barbados.
You may say, no big thing, thompson and the DLP had already done that.
While I agree, it is true to say that the DLP has made a challenging situation much worst.
Camps in Barbados are running on a “rolling basis.”
Still, there is no chance of a costoverrun because no amount is known upfront.
This is what you call PORK.
Shortie Bend // June 25, 2009 at 2:52 PM
About a year ago Minister of Tourism Hon Richard Sealy was speaking about airlift from Africa. A plane load of about 160 persons were brought to Barbados. Length of stay and reason for travel to Barbados would have been known by Immigration Department. Remember what happened with that flight and those persons. Minister Hon Maxine Mcclean negotiated to return those Africans to their native country with some expense to the Barbados government. More talk this time around about airlift from Africa, are we prepared this time around to deal with this situation should plane loads decend upon the Barbadian shores?
The Scout // June 25, 2009 at 4:25 PM
It is unfortunate that that illfated flight had to tarnish what could have been a closer relationship with our “relatives” in Africa. For so many years, Africa was labelled as the “dark continent” but it is only in modern times that we are seeing nations in Africa that are just as developed as parts of USA, Britain or other first world countries. I still think that with proper immigration laws in place, we can welcome TOURISTS from some of these African nations. I prefer to see my African brother on our streets than these parasite indo-guyanese and chinese.
David // June 25, 2009 at 8:17 PM
Is it not incredible that the Nation newspaper is regurgitating articles published in the government owned Guyana newspaper and Barbadian Lindsay Holder who has a valid view would have to be bargaining with these people? We really name to examine the credibility of their editorial policy again!
Rumplestilskin // June 25, 2009 at 8:36 PM
Poll people, should PM Thompson ask Mr.Hogsqueal for advice?
After all, Mr.Hogsqueal, clever as he is, proclaiming that the US economy is on the rebound, seems to have such gusto in his view, that he surely must know more than Warren Buffett?
++++++++++++++
Today’s business news:
Rumplestilskin // June 25, 2009 at 8:41 PM
Oh, look Hogsqueal, US unemployment is just under that % of Barbados’s, but Buffett expects it to get worse.
But, you still blame that of Barbados on Thompson?
So, to be consistent, are you actually putting the blame for US unemployment on current US administration?
According to one blogger above, consistency of argument is critical.
Peace
lholder // June 26, 2009 at 9:35 AM
Hello Livinginbarbados,
The link between increasing crime and an increased number of migrants is quite straightforward.
If the migrants coming into the country have been selected using a managed migration process where one of the procedures involves determination of the criminal background of the individuals, then you will be able to weed out those who are criminals. Under those circumstances, increasing numbers of documented migrants would not be associated with increasing levels of crime.
On the other hand, if the immigration policy is an open door one, e.g., where no Police certificates of character are required, then, other things being equal, you would definitely get a situation where some of the migrants are criminals, as happened when immigration controls were relaxed for the 2007 Cricket World Cup.
Lastly, managed migration does not address the issue of individuals vacationing in a country, and then electing to remain in the country undocumented. Under those circumstances, and other things being equal, some of those undocumented individuals will have a criminal background. Also, note that there are individuals who visit countries and who have no intention of overstaying, but who commit a spate of crimes, involving stealing of high-valued items like cameras, jewellery, etc., and then return to their homelands.
Hog Squeal // June 26, 2009 at 10:23 AM
WHAT MATTERS MOST: Money or labour?
Published on: 6/26/2009.
by CLYDE MASCOLL
“I HAVE BEEN WATCHING and listening studiously to the debate on illegal immigrants and I am in no way surprised by the view of the majority in this matter. A typical illegal immigrant is Guyanese, poor and seeking to enhance his/her life. It is highly unlikely that a typical non-CARICOM [Caribbean Community] illegal immigrant is poor when he/she is welcomed on the basis of wealth that is invested in high-end accommodation or in business; otherwise such an immigrant works in the high-end of the labour market, with some exceptions.
It is therefore not surprising that the amnesty was not extended to non-CARICOM illegal immigrants, since such would be an oxymoron. Indeed, non-CARICOM immigrants constitute the core of the philanthropic society in Barbados which has the financial resources to contribute to the building of a new hospital.
The question is: would an equal number of non-CARICOM immigrants with wealth create the same concerns for the economy and society as the CARICOM immigrants?
If the answer is no, then the issue has nothing to do with the illegality of the immigrants but rather with the country’s capacity to absorb poor immigrants.
At the height of the concerns about illegal immigrants, Barbados experienced its lowest rate of unemployment.
If, as some are arguing, the number of illegal immigrants reached tantalising levels, then the economy was operating at close to full employment because an illegal immigrant is not part of the country’s labour force and by extension not part of its employment or unemployment statistics.
So without the illegal immigrants, assuming that all Barbadians wanted to work, the unemployment rate would have been virtually zero at the end of 2007 and the beginning of 2008.
It was known by the founding fathers of the regional integration movement that a community is not created from a platform of equality and that in the short term there are losers and winners.
In the elaborate preamble to the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas establishing CARICOM, it is stated that the states must be “aware that optimal production by economic enterprises in the community requires the structured integration of production in the region, and particularly, the unrestricted movement of capital, labour and technology”.
Though the use of Trinidad’s capital has attracted a lot of commentary, its movement has not been restricted.
In fact, Trinidad’s capital has moved with impunity to arrest the commanding heights of Barbados’ financial sector broadly defined to include insurance companies and is on course to do the same in the retail and distribution sector.
In the real scheme of things, this constitutes a bigger threat to our ownership and control of the country’s resources than immigrants, illegal or otherwise.
Contrary to what is being suggested publicly, several decisions affecting our financial sector are now made in Trinidad!
Regardless of the source, once it is legal, capital is permitted to flow freely into Barbados and is encouraged.
The use of legal in this sense is clearly defined in international treaties and domestic law, yet it does not guarantee the movement of “legal money” only.
While labour ought to be by definition legal, the labour market distinguishes itself from other markets because the item being exchanged is embodied in a human being.
The decisions of workers, concerning whom to work for and the decisions of firms regarding whom to hire, are not based only on wage, and therefore establishing a community that restricts the decision-making process in the labour market is inherently wrong and thus encourages illegality.
It is easier to associate the building of social infrastructure with the free flow of money than it is to do so with the free flow of labour in the short term.
However, the key to resolving these issues is planning, not panic, particularly when there is not all bad to immigrant labour. Yet again, those who have are being favoured!”
http://www.nationnews.com/comments/guestcolumnists/mascoll-column-june-26-copy-for-web
+++++++++++++++++++++
And, imagine – DavidThompson is Prime Minister!
Livinginbarbados // June 26, 2009 at 10:36 AM
@LHolder
Your formulation was not what was at issue, which was a straight line of more immigrants mean more crime (and I take that to be proportionate, not absolute). As you say, you will get a situation where “some of the migrants are criminals”. You also have a situation where some of the nationals are criminals. The issue is whether you necessarily worsen the situation with immigration.
The items you mention that could weed out criminals are not often used in any country, but that’s not a major issue to me. Managed migration is really about flows and beyond that, it may take on social policy characteristics (eg with the US filtering by limiting migrants certain countries, which it feels are already over-represented. But that is a long discussion.
Glad that you flagged the tourism criminals, which is something that I feel is not well understood here. But I hear there is a good business in robbing and drug dealing and selling sex, targeting tourists.
Taken to the extreme, we have a case of managed migration, where the selected population was made up largely of criminals. Now, it is interesting to look how Australia developed with that chain around its neck, if I can play on words.
Hog Squeal // June 26, 2009 at 11:08 AM
David Thompson’s personal; inhumane, cruel and heartless deportation policy.
++++++++++++++++++
The ongoing discussion on immigration and David Thompson’s personal; inhumane, cruel and heartless treatment of Caribbean nationals, especially indo-Guyanese – is not who we are as Barbadians.
David Thompson and his tired outfit purport to be acting in the name of all Barbadians but that is misleading because they are confused about what is just, decent and humane.
Such cruel and inhumane treatment of undocumented Caribbean immigrants has placed Barbados in the vulnerable position as being an uncaring, arrogant and insensitive people.
Under this DLP rule of terror, Caribbean nationals (especially indo-Guyanese) are being rounded up like cattle and deported, while Chinese threaten to bulldoze the homes of Barbadians who were living on the land for over a half of a century.
Brand name Europeans and others (even though here illegal) are allowed to stay because of their so-called, philanthropic capacity – the very one which the DLP craves and sees as a substitute for diminished remittances and its economic mismanagement.
In share arrogance, it bothers English-born David Thompson little that regional scholars, respected regional journalist and Heads are disappointed that he is single handedly transforming Barbados into something that they cannot now recognise.
The DLP is committed to nothing and no one except big business and those who it considers philanthropists.
Its inhumane and discriminatory deportation policy therefore constitutes trademark DLP human rights violations, as well as the same cruel and inhumane treatment it gave persons from Nigeria who it imprisoned at a military base at Paragon, just like Bush did at Guantanamo.
There is no direction or sense to the DLP’s desperation to rid this country of Guyanese.
In fact Guyanese are being rounded up like cattle and deported by the plane loads, but unemployment is 10.1% and climbing.
Only the DLP would treat people in an inhumane way that violates their human rights and dignity – just as a political gimmick and a distraction tactic and as a game to hide the fact that it does not know what it is doing and is therefore creating a mess.
Anonymous // June 26, 2009 at 11:26 AM
Cud dear poor Hog Squeal, I thought you had swine flu ! ha ha ha ha lol!
Keep on trying my boy ha ha ha !
Sargeant // June 26, 2009 at 12:43 PM
Hogsqueal
Brand name Europeans and others (even though here illegal) are allowed to stay because of their so-called, philanthropic capacity – the very one which the DLP craves and sees as a substitute for diminished remittances and its economic mismanagement.
*************************************
Isn’t this the policy that the BLP promoted all along? The one that said we will not enact any land use legislation because if we prevent North Americans or Europeans from owning property in Barbados they would not invest here since we can’t ask people to invest and then say “No you can’t buy property here”. The policy that was centred around the proposition that these folks not only employed domestic labour but they also provided a haven for the middle class by setting up companies to employ “ Accountants” etc.
You can fool some of the people some of the time.
Anonymous // June 26, 2009 at 12:53 PM
Mr Mascoll, what plans you would put in place to keep this economy going at the level to employ both Barbadians and the immigrants?
My view is that because of poor planning in the past and inability to come up with workable plans now, it has become necessary to jettison the illegal immigrants. It is they who are more likely to be competing with Barbadian for jobs, housing etc.
The government is simply being pragmatic
Camper // June 26, 2009 at 12:53 PM
And, imagine – DavidThompson is Prime Minister!
________________
The only person who can’t imagine this is Clyde Mascoll and Henderson Bovell (Hog Squeal). It hursts doesn’t it!
If Barbados wasn’t being noticed before, it is now! We actually have a policy – rather than a free-for-all on an important area of national life.
We have had 14 years of free-for-alls in land purchases, housing, immigration, PSV’s behaviour, health.
We not have leadership.
And he is a good leader, to boot!
Hog Squeal // June 26, 2009 at 1:42 PM
Camper wrote:
“If Barbados wasn’t being noticed before, it is now.”
++++++++++++++++
Something does make sense here! Did Standard and Poor downgrade Barbados?
Here are BLP positives:
Did a number of countries in the Caribbean not establish a Ministry of Social Transformation, after Arthur did.
Under BLP leadership – did the UN Secretary General not say that Barbados is a country that punches many times above its own weight?
Under progressive BLP leadership – did the Pope not ask our High Commissioner to London to convey his pleasure that this country had established a poverty eradication programme?
+++++++++++++++
Camper (brigand) Barbados under DLP rule – is again the laughing stock of the region.
While David Thompson begs philantropists for money to build a hospital, the Jamaican Prime Minister says how extremely embarrass he is at Thompson’ begging bowl symbol for the region.
++++++++++++++++++
I agree! The world finds it amusing that Prime Minister Thompson became a cheer leader at Obama’s nomination, but Regional Heads now select the Guyana President to lead talks in July with the same Obama.
The world laughed when David Thompson when he and his political advisor – invited overseas Barbadians to a venue to be canvassed for the Party which recently lost.
It will know Barbados again when david Thompson takes Barbados – again to the IMF.
+++++++++++++++++
Camper says:
“If Barbados wasn’t being noticed before, it is now.”
If Barbados is so well known, then why has our tourism fallen off a cliff.
You see what I tell you about the DLP – it lacks the capacity to think and can only survive when people send their brains on holiday.
Hog Squeal // June 26, 2009 at 1:50 PM
@ Sargeant,
Hello old boy, could you please tell us why foreign direct investments (FDI) have dried up?
Further, please explain where has investor confidence gone?
Then please say why are tourists travelling but not to Barbados and why are people investing but just not in Barbados?
Despite a money back gimmick if the sun does not shine and US$300 back, Barbados tourism has fallen off a cliff.
Whether Swine Flu of Thompson and the DLP?
Which do you prefer: Sargeant, Scout, Jay, LIB, David et al.
Sargeant, here is something to ponder!
The DLP won the last election by a mere 8, 975 votes – thanks to Clico’s millions.
However, so far, over 6,000 people have lost thier jobs, while the over 3,000 who were supposed to be appointed under the Public Service Act, the BLP passed – have not.
Think, but do not hurt yourself.
Sargeant // June 26, 2009 at 2:48 PM
Hog Squeal
I still await your answer to the question I posed which was based on your comment “Brand name Europeans and others”. You and I know that it was/is the policy as laid down by no other than OSA and his band of merrymen.
Re the vote differential separating the DLP & BLP; Isn’t this the same at every election? What was the vote separation after the previous election won by the BLP?
I suppose Scout, Jay, LIB and David can attest to who they are.
You can still try to fool some people some of the time.
mash up & buy back // June 26, 2009 at 4:00 PM
Jay
I did not think it was very funny you telling the guyanese on starbroek news blog to go to st kitts because they don’t deport illegals.
You know only too well how much that will open up a pandora’s box for the st kitts government.
You know how desperate these guyanese are.
Not funny at all.
Jay // June 26, 2009 at 4:31 PM
It WASN’T meant to be funny at all.It IS real.
The St. Kitts Government recently mentioned that they do NOT do deportations to caricom non-nationals & are thinking of a way to regularize a person’s status.
livinginbarbados // June 26, 2009 at 4:51 PM
@Sargeant
“I suppose Scout, Jay, LIB and David can attest to who they are.”
If by attest you mean confrim, then no problem. I am no ‘masked man’ and use a handle here that relates to my blog, where you can find as much info. as you need about me. I also write to the press and appear occasionally on the radio under my proper name. I am not facelesss or anonymous. But, I am not aligned to any political party or its supporters.
I try to think through issues here, even amidst the noise of some pretty sordid and invidious political bickerers, who don’t seem to be able to hold onto substance for long before resorting to invective. But, I take it that is how local politics are.
Jay // June 26, 2009 at 4:52 PM
@ Mash Up & Buy back
This is the article where I got the information from,but I guess some of the information.
http://www.caribdaily.com/article/172700/no-deportation-in-st-kitts-nevis-illegals-have-chance-to-regularise-status/
The Scout // June 26, 2009 at 8:32 PM
The countries that are most effected by the mass influx of migrants whether legal or illegal are T&T, Antigua and Barbados. Barbados is being criticised for declaring a BARBADOS immigration policy to protect its sovereignty and security, yet the other two countries that are doing the same thing subtlely are running free. Even during the early part of the last administration, immigration officers were rounding up illegals especially on weekends and deporting them. It was rumoured that people were being paid Bds $ 35.00 per head for information. At that time there were no way near the amount we have now, so how can we now accept all these extra people to this little rock now and couldn’t accept them then. The BLP getting on as though they didn’t used to deport illegals then too. In the mean time T&T and Antigua shipping them out.
The Scout // June 26, 2009 at 8:37 PM
I THINK IT IS TIME BAJANS TAKE A STAND ON THE NATION NEWSPAPER. All patriotic bajans should make a pledge to boycott the purchase of that newspaper. At proven that paper is really a Guyanese newpaper. When they say “the Nation” they don’t mean Barbados, they really mean Guyana, RIGHT Roxanne?
Anonymous // June 26, 2009 at 9:18 PM
Scout
Did you see that filthy article about a raid on guyanese at a south coast apartment.
Imagine the word of a landlord renting rooms to coloumbian and guyanese whores is taken as gospel by roxanne gibbs the head of the nation.
Roxanne gibbs and ricky singh, 2 guyanese who have enjoyed the largesse of the barbadian people have now taken to trying to destroy this country through the Nation.
Straight talk // June 26, 2009 at 9:28 PM
Henderson:
Rumplestilskin may be too much of a gentleman to respond to your infantile blatherings.
I’m not quite so genteel.
Please answer these econo-specific questions which Bajans still require answers to, even though the current administration prefer to keep us in the dark.
What was Hardwood Housing’s profit last year, after your administration OK’d $2 million of our money into setting up this sure fire winner?
Is Tony Hoyos still the CEO?
Is Tony Hoyos still on the ” Invest Barbados ” board.
Is the monthly entertainment allowance exclusively available at Tony Hoyos’ Aqua Restaurant still deductible?
Has Clyde Mascoll helped the small black man set up his new hardwood housing project in Market Hill as he said he was willing to do?
Next.
When are the financials going to be released for WCC 2007?
Or would it be suicidal for your party of supposed economic gurus to publish the financial catastrophe they entered into immediately prior to an expected world recession?
Are you ever going to publish the MOU with 3S for the highway improvement so we can all understand how wrong the DLP has been in cancelling it?
Are you able to give us an explanation as to how a oil installation company, with many failed attempts to build prison facilities in North America,
just happen to roll over their Oil Terminal contract into rebuilding our own unfortunately fire-damaged prison?
In case you think the above can be shrugged off, and your party’s fiscal prudence is superior.
Where are the financials for:-
Hotels and Resorts.
NIS
UDC
RDC
NAB ( ho-ho is your baby clean?)
I could go on, but I think the point is made, and even emphasised by your irrational rants.
Tear down your own Crystal Palace before stooping so low to pick up a rock.
Fusfoe // June 27, 2009 at 2:36 AM
My opinion is that most dont see the wood for the trees
Caricom =CariCON
Tourism is our business lets play our part=Tourists are business lets take’m apart
Well know African proverb: In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king.
Fusfoe // June 27, 2009 at 3:18 AM
Allow me to ask, what I see as a few relevant questions:
What use is Caricom?
What advantages are there for Barbados being a Caricom member?
Why when the children were given “free” busfares was the duty on the affordable drinks powders that a lot of working class families use ,increased from 5% to 40% at about the same time?.
Why is it that Caricom goods are generally inferior to Non Caricom goods?
Why is it they are also very much more exspensive. That is if you take way the PUNITATIVE duties that are applied to make them SEEM “competative”
In other words the Caricom producer takes huge profits and the population of Barbados suffers .
What do we produce?
Lets not delude ourselves with National pride.
The answer is PRACTICALLY NOTHING. {yes Good rum but are you really advocating we try to sell more Rum to a relativly static population}
What we do make is vastly overpriced.!
Its called protecting local industry
{by punitative import duties}
When in effect all it does is enrich the few at the exspense of the masses.
Why do 260,000 inhabitants have to endure inferior products .
Lets take jam as an example?
duty and penalties over 225%.
How many people work in the “jam industry here”?
What I am talking about are the root causes of our problems?
The inability to put our own house in order.
Plus the fact the World has “rearranged ” itself.
“Sand Sea and Sunshine” Thank God are all things,that Goverments cannot play around with ,
BUT unforetunately the people who use them and leave foreign exchange here are now severly incapacitated by the “world reorder”
Whilst we are informed there are to be “NEW TOURIST INITIATIVES”
Maybe by making personal loans to would be visitors.
Maybe by making speaches to the world organistions, about the need for “a totally new world economy”
What impudence!
Look here first, try to “see the wood for the trees”
Fusfoe // June 27, 2009 at 3:52 AM
Why are we as a Sovereign Nation worried about transient workers.?
Dont tell me about them doing jobs we dont want to!
What is here WE put here.
We have laboured, we have eaten dirt.
Now we do not have to, because WE BUILT IT.
We now enjoy the fruits of our labours.
If you come from a country that has no standards, wages of 7 US$ a day or less.
Treated with absolutely ZERO respect from your Goverment, what the HELL have you to comment about regarding treatment when you come to Barbados and can earn a minimum of SEVEN times what you earn at home!..?
When Commodity prices escalated,WHO put the price of rice to 1250US$ a ton to the poor masses of BARBADOS,when they the GUYANESE were only paying thier farmers 300US$ a ton for the same rice.YOU DID!
Yes GUYANA and GUYANESE really showed their love for BARBADIANS.
They did what they always do , Rob us to their own advantage.
Yet we have charitably allowed them to improve themselves at our exspense.
If you allow a person to stay at your home does that mean that they can then have in it ,the same rights as you who ,suffered, worked and endured hardship to bring it to what it now is?
Over My Dead Body!
Dont talk to me about Charity!
CHARITY Begins at HOME.
Lets put the shoe on the other foot?
What would a Poor Bajun get from from a Guyanese if he/she were in Guyana.
YEP you got that right brother!
A swift kick in the Butt!
mash up & buy back // June 27, 2009 at 8:21 AM
The Guyanese Conspiracy.
If there was any doubt that there is a conspiracy going on with the guyanese professionals who have settled and living in Barbados – well today’s Starbroek newspaper lays it all out for everyone to see.
It is clear as day that unlike professor Eudine Barriteau who came from grenanda to Barbados as a young child and benefited from free secondary education from primary to tertiary levels as well as all the other benefits – the guyanese people are extremly ungrateful people who are only interested in taking and taking from this society,but when the time comes for them to stand up for us the bajans – they turn on us and join with their llegal countrymen and women in barbados and their corrupt administration – to destroy Brbados’ image in the world.
Prof Barriteau in a radio interview on VOB, stood up for bajans and their kindness and generosity to her when she came here as a poor young girl,the daughter of a hawker,and she condemned the way these non nationals who are enjoying a better life in barbados are now condemning barbados because they are being deported for being illegal in the country.
BU family we are in UNCHARTERED waters and we are in DANGEROUS times.
Bajans every where needs right now to speak with their pocket book and IMMEDIATELY STOP BUYING THE NATION NEWSPAPER,and instead read it on line or not at all.
Friends,have a look in today’s Starbroek newspaper and see what is going on.
The game being played out is this .The Starbroek prints every day a negative story on immigration in Barbados,and the next day the Nation newspaper headed by the guyanese roxanne gibbs carries the starbroek story in the barbadian paper.
Go on the archives for the Starbroek newspaper and see for the past 8 or more weeks a negative story is carried every day about Barbados.
It is more difficult to fully research the nation because their on line paper is sparse,however what I have noticed is that they will print the negative immigration story on line,but the pro- barbados response is hardly ever published on line.
Now what we have are the so-called guyanese ‘heavy guns’ who have all scampered from guyana and run to Barbados and are living large,now giving interviews to the Starbroek newspapers condemning barbados.
In today’s starbroek it is shridath ramphal, and compton bourne (CDB), and a reference to Prof clive thomas,and of course bharat jagdeo.
Guess who shridath ramphal quotes as an authoratative source? – none other that the subervisive annalee davis – and he quotes her as a researcher.
Now as far as I know she ahs always described herself as an ‘artist’.
See who they use for back up?
They are using the words of BAJANS to hit out against barbados,so we see quotes from mia mottley,or owen arthur,or annalee davis that white girl who cares more about indian guyanese workers than her homeland,or david commissong – the Opportunist, who was born in st vincent.
Roxanne gibbs and her protaganists may see their desired aim of confusion and bitterness against barbados in the short term,but the long term effect for guyanese will be far more lasting.
No matter what gonsalves,stephenson king and the other caricom leaders say;they are watching carefully what happens when you allow a build up of guyanese in your country (like owen did),and will be seeking to prevent the barbadian scenario from happening to them.
However the deepest effect will be the future guyanese – barbados relationship amongst the ordinary people.
For never again will bajans feel they can trust guyanese and will want to reach out and offer them a helping hand – because they know a quick kick in the backside at the end of it all will be coming from the guyanese.
Scout,JC,NegromanAdrian and others did warn barbados about this day a long time ago.
The chickens are finally coming home to roost.
livinginbarbados // June 27, 2009 at 9:21 AM
As I read Clyde Mascoll’s article, I also read and was struck profoundly by the Lowdown column. In particular, two passages really stood out:
“Barbados has evolved over the years into a stable, peaceful society – majority Blacks who control the Government, professions, workforce; a few thousand Whites who get blamed for most things, run businesses, support political parties; sundry Indian and other traders who keep to themselves and make a lot of money.
We like it so. We especially don’t want to import ethnic conflict as seen in Trinidad, Guyana and elsewhere.”
There is an interesting notion here that Barbados is at ethnic piece, so long as the established areas of ethnic influence and places are not disturbed.
The second passage:
“The black Barbadian nation has been conquered by stopping the transfer of values, including thrift and hard work, from the older generation to the present.
And the seeds of discontent fell on fertile ground. The black Barbadian agricultural or construction worker never saw where he would eventually become a manager or owner, despite knowing those trades backwards.
So he has opted out of certain jobs, preferring in many cases crime or trading in drugs. But I for one am convinced that with a concerted effort by all, the Barbadian work ethic will return to its former unrivalled majesty.
For a start, black Barbadians must be shown how to use their legacy of agricultural expertise to take over the vast acreages of abandoned estates, to farm with modern methods and grow rich. Otherwise the land developers will rake in millions selling it to foreigners and it will be lost forever to indigenous Barbadians.
The present Guyanese immigrant workers reputedly work hard for lower wages. But don’t be surprised if future waves set up their own farms, construction firms, mechanic shops and lumber outlets, employing their own people and undercutting their previous employers.
And let those Bajans who are turning their backs on locals in favour of immigrant workers beware! There are very few jobs which can’t be done by outsiders at a lower cost.”
This says that black Barbadians were denied higher places on the economic ladder by those who controlled access to those places (and they were local whites and Indians by the same analysis), but must now beware that their place is now under threat from outsiders. This is a very interesting plea whose logic is that black Bajans should not pick a fight with those other nationals that have put them down, but should focus their wrath on new entrants that may keep them down.
I am not a Bajan, so I cannot respond to that as a national, but as a black person it resonates as an set of excuses. I think this is really a bogus argument that fosters a status quo, with no evident intent to see the reins of economic power shift.
Food for thought.
Anon // June 27, 2009 at 9:49 AM
they turn on us and join with their llegal countrymen and women in barbados and their corrupt administration – to destroy Brbados’ image in the world.
………………………………………
Mash up you spoke a mouthful a great deal thought provking. Thompson’s amnesty has my 100% support but we must stay careful and wise.
Barbados seized the high moral ground on this difficult illegal immigration matter. We cannot lose the high ground through unecessary careless actions by a few immigration personnel.
The Chief Immigration Officer or Minister needs to issue a clear the air statement on the “raids” and how they are carried out.
Governments and people in Caribbean islands disliking Bajans is nothing new. Gonzalves a so called prime minister often accused of rape is the perfect example.
Barbados is a respected member of international community but our enemies in the Caribbean are on the increase. They will stop at nothing to mash up Barbados.
We have to stick to our values and principles which earned us top HDI rating .Transparency is most important. Barbados must never relinquish the high moral ground.
The Scout // June 27, 2009 at 9:50 AM
It is unfortunate when so-called regional gurus like Compton Bourne and Shridath Ramphal, could stoop so low as to utter the gargage that I’m reading. it just shows that CARICOM/ CSME or any thing similar will NEVER work in this region because of the insularity even coming from the top brass. Did Mr Bourne or Sir Shridath investigate these accusations first before rushing to utter such one-sided comments? Obviously NOT but you know why because they are both guyanese. Did either of them go to the airport and see the ZR LIAT plane with the sign “Guyanese Deportees” on it. There would have to be one there since the immigration officers are picking up these illegals by the bus load and deporting them. I would ask Mr Bourne while he is in Guyana to talk to President Jagdeo and ask him to treat his people with dignity, this would stop them from fleeing from a country with so much potential. All that these so-called gurus are doing is making it bad for the many guyanese who are enloying sweet life in Barbados. Now with the negativity dumped on Bajans, we are painting ALL guyanese with the same brush. Don’t blame us since those at the top like Ramphal and Bourne can’t see pass their insularity.
The Scout // June 27, 2009 at 10:03 AM
All the countries in the region were trying for years to see Barbados fall. They have tried everything, in the early 90’s they even refused accepting Bds currency because as they said it was going to be devalued. Many of my so-called friends in the region was disappointed when it didn’t happen. One of these samre fellows was in Barbados recently and I walked out of a lime yesterdaywhen he remarked that “we got ya this time, ya can’t get out of this one.” He was suppose to leave this morning, I hope ne never returns because in the future I will only deal with him on business matters. I used to stay at his house, his childern were like my children but, as I told him, if this is what you wish, not for me byt for my offspring, well I can no longer call you my friend.
Ready-Done // June 27, 2009 at 10:11 AM
I completely agree with Clyde Mascoll’s article, we got domestic problems to deal with, so it makes no since importing other problems.
David // June 27, 2009 at 10:30 AM
Isn’t Dr. Bourne a St. Lucian?
mash up & buy back // June 27, 2009 at 10:50 AM
Compton bourne is a Guyanese,born and bred.
Don’t mix up the comptons of st lucia e.g. john compton etc.
A lot of st lucians went to guyana to work around the same time as the bajans during the colinial period in the late 19th and early 20th century period.
I don’t see however the guyanese demanding that st lucians let them in because they got st lucian grandparents.
mash up & buy back // June 27, 2009 at 11:07 AM
Anon @9:49 a.m.
If as you say you support the amnesty then I can’t see why you are suggesting a ‘clear the air’ statement from the immigration chief.
Are you aware that this is exactly what Jagdeo,ricky singh and roxanne gibbs want?
These excessive amount of negative stories in the Starbroek newspaper and the Nation news, and then follow up comments by jagdeo,shridath ramphal compton bourne clive thomas etc have a purpose to it.
It is to put prime minister thompson and miss mcclean so much on the defensive that they will do exactly as owen did ,and start backing down,and start second guessing the immigration officers like how owen did when he brought in guyanese immigration officers to check behind the bajan immigration officers.
Don’t fall for the trap my dear,the bajan immigration officers need to act just like their counterparts in jamaica,caymans,bahams,trinidad or even the U.S.
Immigration raids are not picnics,and invitations do not go out in advance.
In order for these guyanese who already said they were not leaving and were going to go underground – to know that the immigration and the P.M. are serious – is for the raids to be done in a stern and forceful manner.
If we appear too soft guyanese will bring all these hard luck stories and milk it to the hilt.
No immigration officer want to deal up in shit so that story about faeces and urine in yesterday’s Nation – is just that – a story.
However immigration off icers know that guyanese will do anything to hide from them like for e.g. an account given on brasstacks last weeek by a construction manager who said he has seen cases where guyanese even jumped into dry pit to hide.
Go figure.
Bush Tea // June 27, 2009 at 11:35 AM
@Scout
You are 100% correct.
Nothing would please our mendicant Caricom ‘brothers and sisters’ more than to see Barbados on its knees begging..
This has been the case since the days of EWB.
The Bushman has LIVED this experience now for decades…. it is no secret. They do not hide it….
Only foolish Bajans have any doubt about this reality.
The sooner that we realize that our destiny lies in our own hands, and in the support of genuine friends (like Canada, for example) the sooner we will stop wasting time with things like CSME, CCJ and Caricom.
The Bushman is not even vexed with those who hate out guts….
We are an arrogant set of people!
We are successful beyond what we deserve!
…and we do not appreciate the multiple blessings that God have bestowed on us…
Additionally, in the last twenty years, we have been making great strides in lowering our standards to match these neighbors and we are therefore well on track to satisfy their desires and hopes for us.
lholder // June 27, 2009 at 3:07 PM
Hello Folks,
The immigration debate is surely heating up.
You should note the following. Professor Clive Thomas of Guyana lied or simply ignored the facts when he stated that several CARICOM countries had ratified the “Migrant Workers’ Convention”, the United Nations (UN) Convention that addresses the rights of migrant workers and members of their families. As of today, only 41 of the UN’s 192 member states have ratified the Convention. No major developed country has ratified it. Of the 41 countries that have ratified it, two are CARICOM member countries; Belize, which ratified the Convention on 14th November 2001, and Jamaica, which ratified it on 25th September 2005. Guyana signed the Convention on 15th September 2005, but is yet to ratify it. When a country ratifies the Convention, it becomes the applicable law in that country provided that at least twenty UN members have ratified it.
Note also that the East Indian Sir Shridath Ramphal, who is living comfortably in Barbados and not in the country of his birth, Guyana, has introduced into the debate the phrase ‘intimations of ethnic cleansing’.
Lastly, the issue of whether Guyanese Professor Compton Bourne, President of the Caribbean Development Bank, was speaking in his capacity of the Bank or an individual should be assessed. Then again, it is difficult to distinguish between the two. Thus, the comments made by him, because of his privileged position, indicates that he has crossed the thin line that separates his professional obligations from meddling in the domestic affairs of Barbados.
Themis // June 27, 2009 at 3:16 PM
No, Lindsay, you are wrong. A ratification alone does not make a Convention applicable law in a country…legislation is still required. And should I apply your words re Shridath Ramphal to David Thompson who was born in England? And how is it meddling in domestic affairs to say that the organs of a state shopuld act in accordance with law? C’mon, lholder, your slip is showing…and it is soiled!
mash up & buy back // June 27, 2009 at 3:46 PM
Lindsay holder
Thank you my dear fellow.
Please ignore the yardfowls on this site like themis and hog squeal.
I suppose the leader of the opposition office is closed on week ends so you notice that henderson bovell and slyvan greenidge alias ‘hog squeal’ and ‘royal rumble’ are not posting.
That is their full time job as office assitants to the leader of the Opposition Mia Mottley.
I concur on your remarks on shridat ramphal,but note you are not alone,the guyanese bloggers who comment on the starbroek newspaer articles on line are also saying the same thing – that is – why is shridath ramphal criticising barbados when he is living the sweet life there and will not go back home to guyana?
David/BU have you heard if it is true that the prime minister is addressing the immigration issue at 4:15 p.m.?
Themis // June 27, 2009 at 3:55 PM
Is that really the best you can do, mash up…?
David // June 27, 2009 at 4:00 PM
@mash up
Yes…4.00PM!
@y.paris
Please don’t relegate this debate to deporting people, it is much bigger.
Sargeant // June 27, 2009 at 4:15 PM
He maintained that ‘The knock on the door at night’ is not within our regional culture; still less are intimations of ‘ethnic cleansing’
**************************************
The words of Sir Shridath Ramphal: Ramphal was/is a diplomat who is presumable well schooled in the words of diplomacy. Diplomats are supposed to chose their words carefully and the words that he has chosen will cause a conflagration in the region and the wider world. He didn’t say Guyanese he used the word “ethnic cleansing” for maximum effect when he used “ethnic” there is no doubt to whom he is referring. I haven’t heard the word in relation to the US and the Mexican illegals nor have I heard it in the context of the European countries in their difficulties with illegal immigrants.
In effect he is painting the Barbadian Gov’t and its leader in the same brush as Idi Amin and those who think otherwise have their heads buried in the sand. If Thompson does not address this he has lost any respect I still have for him.
Ramphal was curiously silent on the UN report on race relations in Guyana which the Guyanese Gov’t dismissed as biased but he used the word “ethnic cleansing” in relation to Barbados’ attempts to stem the flow of illegal immigrants.
Remember he was/is a diplomat
lholder // June 27, 2009 at 4:15 PM
Themis,
You are an idiotic fool, and I do not waste my time with fools. You are fortunate since I will waste the time to put you right.
I made the distinction between signing the Convention and ratifying it. Signing indicates the intent to ratify. Ratification means acceptance or enactment of the Convention into the domestic laws of a given country in accordance with the established procedures, and that is the same thing as passing legislation.
David Thompson is a Barbadian, pure and simple.
With regard to Professor Bourne, are you aware of any instances where the President of the Inter-American Development Bank (IADB), a multilateral financial institution located in Washington, D.C., U.S.A., or the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), also a multilateral financial institution located in the same city, have commented on the immigration policy of the U.S.A. or on similar matters?
David // June 27, 2009 at 4:23 PM
Please listen to the short address delivered by the Prime Minister Thompson.
Thanks to the BU family member who emailed!
David // June 27, 2009 at 4:25 PM
We ask the BU family to stay focused and to ignore the attempts to railroad the debate. There is a massive conspiracy at play. Stay smart!
VOB carried it delayed at 4.15PM.
mash up & buy back // June 27, 2009 at 4:43 PM
Thank you David for that live feed.
David,is it just me or did you also get the sense that prime minister thompson is also on to the Conspiracy that is going on?
David,every day I am so grateful for Barbados Underground.
Just imagine if you were not here what would happen to us the citizens.
Vob would be censoring the discussion,CBC would have the discussion skewed when peter wickham is on,Barbados Free Press will not be allowing any such discussion and the Nation newspaper would not be printing the pro-immigration policy coulmns or letters to the editor and only the inflamatory pro-guyanese stuff.
I believe the P.M. is reading this blog and I am so glad.
lholder // June 27, 2009 at 5:03 PM
Hello Folks,
Correction! Jamaica ratified the United Nations Migrant Workers Convention on 25th September 2008, and not on the 25th September 2005.
David // June 27, 2009 at 5:20 PM
If we go by the numbers given by the PM and why shouldn’t we, the phrase being tossed around that plane loads of Guyanese in particular is baseless.
mash up & buy back // June 27, 2009 at 6:14 PM
David & BU Family
The prime minister is not lying.
Last week in starbroek news Home Affairs minister Rohee stated that there has been no large return of their nationals and it is only a trickle so far.
I think Roger Luncheon their Cabinet Secretary also confirmed this,yet the guyanese bloggers on starbroek news preferred to believe roxanne gibbs lies at the Nation and those propogandists at Starbroek news.
Themis // June 27, 2009 at 6:53 PM
lholder,
When you become aware of what “ratification” really means, and it is not what you think it means, then you will see who is the idiotic fool. It is you who introduced the concept of birth and you still have not shown how commenting on allegations of human rights abuses constitutes interference into a country’s affairs. You are not too bright, are you?
mash up & buy back // June 27, 2009 at 7:01 PM
Lindsay holder & Sargeant
I too was taken aback by the so called diplomat shridhat ramphal talking baout ‘ethnic cleansing’ going on in Barbados.
So I asked myself where have I heard that before?
Then I remembered – it was norman faria who said barbados immigration was profiling guyanese on how they look – meaning the obvious difference – their indian -ness.
Hence racial profiling.
Ricky singh too made that claim some time back.
Noe shridath ramphal.
Sadly,this is how indians behave.
It is always their race first before country,before regional integration,before diplomatic niceties,before gratitude.
We are learning real fast.
He took the side of hearsay rather than caution or balance.
ROK // June 27, 2009 at 7:55 PM
Bust Tea
I hear that our good friends the Canadians pulling out their development funding from Barbados.
mash up & buy back // June 27, 2009 at 8:08 PM
Meaning what ROK?
lholder // June 27, 2009 at 8:16 PM
Themis,
The more you respond to the objective comments of others, the more you indicate that you are an idiotic fool.
Below is one explanation of the meaning of ratification with regard to the United Nations (UN) Migrant Workers’ Convention. The explanation is taken from the Information Kit on the UN Convention on Migrant Rights published by the Sector for Social and Human Sciences of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).
“The ratification of the Convention by a state means that the legislative or law-making branch of its government has adopted the Convention and promised to incorporate it into its national laws.”
Following is some background on the Convention as well as a second explanation of ratification taken from ‘Fact Sheet No. 24, The Rights of Migrant Workers’, published by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.
“The Convention was adopted by the General Assembly on 18th December 1990 and opened for signature by all Member States of the United Nations. Individual States could then ratify the Convention. Ratification requires the approval of the competent national authority, generally the parliament. States may also accede to the Convention by combining signature and ratification in one act. The Convention will enter into force following ratification or accession by 20 States. When a State ratifies or accedes to the Convention, it becomes a State party.”
Could you please explain the difference between the two explanations I have just provided and what I said in my first response to you?
On the issue of birth, clearly the point I made was too subtle for you to comprehend. David Thompson is a Barbadian, pure and simple. But you have a Guyanese East Indian, born in Guyana, and now living comfortably in Barbados, who has the gall to suggest that the Government’s immigration policy has ‘intimations of ethnic cleansing.’ Yet, that same individual has not commented on the findings of the MacDougall Report that Guyana is an ethnically polarised society. Let me quote two paragraphs from the executive summary of the Report for your benefit.
“Ethnically divided political and administrative structures and failed political processes have created deep frustrations and distrust in the nstitution of government. A climate of
suspicion, rumour and conspiracy theory exists in Guyana which has been fuelled by exceptionally violent incidents in 2008. Two separate and conflicting narratives and perceptions
of reality have emerged among Afro- and Indo-Guyanese, which threaten to undermine shared values and common goals that are essential to a united, prosperous Guyana.”
“Afro-Guyanese with whom the independent expert met described feeling excluded from having a full voice and stake in the national polity and equal enjoyment of rights in many fields of life including employment and economic participation. They reported stigmatization of young Afro-Guyanese males and entire African communities. Derogatory stereotypes of criminality
colour wider societal perceptions of Afro-Guyanese individuals and communities.”
The fact that you seem to find nothing wrong with Sir Shridath Ramphal’s use of the phrase ‘intimations of ethnic cleansing’ clearly indicates to me that you have another agenda, which I do not, or that somehow your reasoning and senses have been compromised.
Lastly, with regard to Pprofessor Bourne, the role of CDB is to provide financial assistance to member states of CARICOM. Any comments he makes in his capacity of President of CDB should be confined to the role and objectives of the Bank. If you want to better understand the point I am trying to make, consider the fallout from him making comments on Barbados’ immigration policy, where those comments cannot be substantiated.
ROK // June 27, 2009 at 8:22 PM
@IHolder
Why are you sinning your soul?
@mu&bb: Just what I said. If u are Canadian I did not know that and the comment was not intended to be about you… but sometimes you don’t know who your true friends are until a time of crisis comes.
lholder // June 27, 2009 at 8:28 PM
ROK,
You are right, I should not respond to Themis.
But you know, there are times when some of the personal attacks directed at you by some individuals are so offensive or illogical that you have no choice than to respond.
mash up & buy back // June 27, 2009 at 8:31 PM
ROK
All I was seeking was some clarification.
I just wanted to be clear why you were introducing that point in the discussion at this time.
That is,whether you thought this action you reported is a result of the worldwide economic situation,or you felt that bush tea was presuming too much by thinking Canada was with us,or whether immigration had any thing to do with it.
Just for the record,at the begining of the year Canada also stated that it will not be proviving some particular funding to Guyana.
Signs of the times I presume – each man brekking for himself.
livinginbarbados // June 27, 2009 at 8:31 PM
@LHolder
““The ratification of the Convention by a state means that the legislative or law-making branch of its government has adopted the Convention and promised to incorporate it into its national laws.””
The key words are “promised to incorporate it into its national laws”, which depends on whatever legislative timetable the government of the day has in mind. Until there are national laws enacted the ratified convention (of any sort) has not legal effect in the country concern. It is merely a commitment up to that point.
I know of plenty of instances of countries signing and ratifying conventions but never passing or even tabling any national legislation to make them effective.
David // June 27, 2009 at 8:47 PM
Barbados is represented on the Board of Governors of CDB, Bourne’s swipe at Barbados can have repercussions. Perhaps his is an attempt to elevate to William Demas.
Sir Shridath is a fat cat with homes in Sandy Lane and London and perhaps see the opportunity to pad his legacy. Whatever his reason Thompson exposed the plot this evening. The next chapter i.e press conference in GT should ice it. Thompson a Cawmere boy should be holding an ace up his sleeve.
Sargeant // June 27, 2009 at 8:54 PM
I feel compelled to add to my earlier comments about the term “ethnic cleansing” used by Sir Shridath Ramphal in his interview with Stabroek News. This is not some “Ordinary Joe” in the street using over heated hyperbole to sound off but a retired Secretary General of the Commonwealth. The term “ethnic cleansing” has been used to describe the odious regime in Yugoslavia in relation to events in Bosnia. Latterly it has been used to describe actions in Rwanda and Darfur.
Ramphal on the conclusion of his term likely had his choice of multiple countries in which to reside but he chose to live in Barbados. Now that the Barbados Gov’t has deported less than 100 Guyanese citizens who were residing illegally in Barbados he grants an interview to Stabroek where he lumps the action of the Barbados Gov’t with rogue regimes.
A little history to make a point: In 1965 when Ian Smith’s Rhodesian Front in the then British colony of Rhodesia made the Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) from Britain, Harold Wilson the then British Prime Minister said that the use of military force to reverse the illegal act would not be contemplated because the UK population would not support such an action since the Rhodesians “are our kith and kin”
That’s how Ramphal feels about some Guyanese who were deported; they are his “kith and kin”
mash up & buy back // June 27, 2009 at 9:01 PM
Sargeant
Man you just preached a sermon there.
I hope the minister of Home Affairs and the P.M. are made aware of sir shridath comments.
Wasn’t he also given the homour of delivering the last Errol Barrow lecture?
Dlp people you better learn fast about these indian people.
Kith and kin from their ethnic group above all else.
lholder // June 27, 2009 at 9:43 PM
Livinginbarbados,
Note that my earlier comments related to Professor Thomas’ misleading statements with regard to CARICOM countries and the Migrant Workers’ Convention (see my earlier post on the blog). In that posting on the blog, I made the distinction between signature and ratification. I stated that “Guyana signed the Convention on the 15th September 2005, but is yet to ratify it. When a country ratifies the Convention, it becomes the applicable law in that country provided that at least twenty UN members have ratified it.”
Following those statements, Themis jumped on the bandwagon with response, “A ratification alone does not make a Convention applicable law in a country… legislation is still required.”
To provide greater clarity on the issue, I reproduce below the formal UN definitions of ‘Signature’ and ‘Ratification’.
Signature: ‘Signature’ of a treaty is an act by which a State provides a preliminary endorsement of the instrument. Signing does not create a binding legal obligation but does demonstrate the State’s intent to examine the treaty domestically and consider ratifying it. While signing does not commit a State to ratification, it does oblige the State to refrain from acts that would defeat or undermine the treaty’s objective and purpose.
Ratify/Ratification: ‘Ratification’ is an act by which a State signifies an agreement to be legally bound by the terms of a particular treaty. To ratify a treaty, the State first signs it and then fulfils its own national legislative requirements. Once the appropriate national organ of the country – Parliament, Senate, the Crown, Head of State or Government, or a combination of these – follows domestic constitutional procedures and makes a formal decision to be a party to the treaty. The instrument of ratification, a formal sealed letter referring to the decision and signed by the State’s responsible authority, is then prepared and deposited with the United Nations Secretary-General in New York.
Based on the second definition, I would think that, for example, if the Parliament of Barbados makes a formal decision by tabling, in the approved format, and approving the Convention in both the House of Assembly and in the Senate, then the Convention becomes the applicable law provided that the criterion of at least twenty UN members ratifying the Convention has been met. Of course, the Governor General has to assent before it becomes law. In my opinion, those procedures are covered under the statement, “Once the appropriate national organ of the country – Parliament, Senate, the Crown, Head of State or Government, or a combination of these – follows domestic constitutional procedures and makes a formal decision to be a party to the treaty.”
So for me, ratification means enactment into the laws of a country, i.e., passing of the appropriate legislation. Thus, there is no difference between ratification and legislation as Themis tried to imply.
Sargeant, thank you so much for expounding on the nuances of Sir Shridath Ramphal’s statement. Wonderful! You know, these points we have been discussing are beyond Themis’ grasp, poor fellow.
Themis // June 27, 2009 at 9:48 PM
LIB< thank you for your explanation. I hope lholder has the nous to get it…ratification binds the State in international law…only legislation can bind it in municipal law…As for you ROK why don't you go back to sleep or keep on discussing the mark of the beast, Incidentally, would Ramphal not be entitled to Barbadian status given the amount of time he has lived here?
livinginbarbados // June 27, 2009 at 9:58 PM
@LHolder
Ratification has no applicable meaning at the national level other than intent to agree, because conventions deal with general principles that then need to be legislated to fit national circumstances.
So, as you state: “‘Ratification’ is an act by which a State signifies an agreement to be legally bound by the terms of a particular treaty. To ratify a treaty, the State first signs it and then fulfils its own national legislative requirements. Once the appropriate national organ of the country – Parliament, Senate, the Crown, Head of State or Government, or a combination of these – follows domestic constitutional procedures and makes a formal decision to be a party to the treaty.”
That legal process has no time limit, and some countries sign onto treaties/conventions and ratify them then go no further. There are kudos for being signatories and ratifying.
“I would think that, for example, if the Parliament of Barbados makes a formal decision by tabling, in the approved format, and approving the Convention in both the House of Assembly and in the Senate, then the Convention becomes the applicable law provided that the criterion of at least twenty UN members ratifying the Convention has been met. Of course, the Governor General has to assent before it becomes law.” Contains a big ‘if’, and nothing applies legally at the national level until that ‘if’ is done. There can be a huge gap in time between ratification and national law being in place.
We are agreed on process, but we should leave the impression that these are rubber stamp exercise. We can make a side bet on when we think the process will be completed in Barbados :-)
Themis // June 27, 2009 at 9:59 PM
lholder, you are missing the point. Ratification binds the state in international law, as we have ratified the American Convention on Human Rights. But there is still a need for legislation by Parliament for the terms of the treaty to become binding in local law, so that for instance even tho that Convention forbids a mandatory death penalty, our municipal law does not because we have not yet passed legislation on the matter.This is my final submission on this point…BTW,your pitiful attempts at insulting my intellect do not become you
Bush Tea // June 27, 2009 at 10:06 PM
@ROK
Are you suggesting that true friends are identified by their willingness to provide gifts?
Did you notice my use of the adjective ‘mendicant’ to describe my perspective of the attitude of many Caribbean peoples?
ROK, true ‘friends’ are those who genuinely care about your welfare and wellbeing. They are there when you fall- to help you up – but not to pander to any laziness or self-inflicted idiocy.
True friends are happy for you when you succeed…. not to be confused with parasites who jump onto your back in order to exploit opportunities not available to them on their home host.
What developmental funding what?!?
When you look around Barbados do you really see a need for ‘developmental’ funding?
We just burnt down a working prison and spent hundreds of millions on a new one ‘just so…’
We do not even know how much we spent with the ABC /3S / Veco / fiascos – why would real friends offer us ‘developmental funding’?
…real friends are those who support our genuine tourism, business, social and other enterprises..
livinginbarbados // June 27, 2009 at 10:17 PM
@LHolder
I should have written “There can be a huge gap in time between ratification and FULL WORKING NATIONAL LEGISLATION being in place.’ In many countries, passing laws at the national level still takes you only a step forward in making international treaties/conventions workable at the national level, because other enabling legislation is often needed.
lholder // June 27, 2009 at 11:35 PM
Livinginbarbados,
Based on your last posting, I get the general drift of what you are saying, but there are some aspects that we should discuss.
For example, I am not sure what you mean by the statement “Ratification has no applicable meaning at the national level other than intent to agree, because conventions deal with general principles that then need to be legislated to fit national circumstances.”
First of all, let us accept that ratification involves two components; the major one being the acceptance or enactment into the domestic laws of a given country in accordance with the established procedures. Once that is done, then the country would indicate to the UN, in the case of the Migrant Workers’ Convention, through a formal sealed letter that it has enacted the appropriate legislation.
As you implied, there can be a huge time lapse between the two events or actions that we just outlined, e.g., because of the need to amend other legislation. In practice, however, if the country is sincere in its intention to adopt the Convention, it would take the necessary steps to enact the Convention into domestic law and to amend any subsidiary legislation at the same time or in the same sitting of Parliament. Thus, the time between undertaking the appropriate legislative activities and formally informing the UN should not be long.
Once the two actions are completed, Article 87, Clause 2 states that, “For each State ratifying or acceding to the present Convention after its entry into force, the Convention shall enter into force on the first day of the month following a period of three months after the date of the deposit of its own instrument of ratification or accession.”
With regard to your statement that, “conventions deal with general principles that then need to be legislated to fit national circumstances”, there are some issues that we should consider and probably get legal advice on.
For example, Article 88 of the Migrant Workers’ Convention states, “A State ratifying or acceding to the present Convention may not exclude the application of any Part of it, or, without prejudice to article 3, exclude any particular category of migrant workers from its application.”
Article 3 excludes certain types of migrants from the Convention.
Yet, Article 91 states:
1. The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall receive and circulate to all States the text of
reservations made by States at the time of signature, ratification or accession.
2. A reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the present Convention shall not be permitted.
According to the ‘United Nations Treaty Collection – Treaty Reference Guide’, reservation has the following meaning:
“A reservation is a declaration made by a state by which it purports to exclude or alter the legal effect of certain provisions of the treaty in their application to that state. A reservation enables a state to accept a multilateral treaty as a whole by giving it the possibility not to apply certain provisions with which it does not want to comply. Reservations can be made when the treaty is signed, ratified, accepted, approved or acceded to. Reservations must not be incompatible with the object and the purpose of the treaty. Furthermore, a treaty might prohibit reservations or only allow for certain reservations to be made.”
[Arts.2 (1) (d) and 19-23, Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties 1969]
So as you implied, a country can have objections to some of the articles of the Convention, and those objections should be indicated by entering reservations. But in light of Article 88, I do not have the legal expertise to determine how Article 91 would be interpreted given the provisions of Article 88.
lholder // June 27, 2009 at 11:52 PM
Hello Themis,
My intention is not to insult your intellect. For God’s sake, though, use your intellect wisely. For me that means responding objectively to objective comments made by others on national issues. Leave the partisan political bickering for local issues, e.g., the ABC highway or Constituency Councils. If the current Government makes mistakes on those issues, there will always be the opportunity to correct them. If, however, we make very serious mistakes on immigration, then it is highly unlikely that we can correct them in the future.
If you or I go to Guyana, given the way that Barbadians have been painted on this immigration issue, you are just as likely as I to end up with a busted head regardless of what our personal views or political persuasions are.
Jay // June 28, 2009 at 4:39 AM
When I look at this whole debate with continued interest as it pertains to not only Guyana but also other Caribbean states the common theme that I seem to be seeing is that it isn’t really about “complete free-movement” or “treaties” from the “regionalists” camp, but It is just really High-capita per income countries vs low-capita per income countries within CSME.I think Barbados’ immigration policy is just being used as a front for something much bigger in Caricom with the Prime Minister of Barbados being the main target NOT the policy in question.The reasoning behind the ‘regionalists’ effort is simply to weaken the resolve of Mr. Thompson as the head of the CSME project so he would be more willing negotiate on so called “contingent rights”.Think about it,those that are currently leading the charge on the ‘regionalists’ side are basically from the poorer economies[per capita wise] within CSME.I got the idea after reading this article from Dr. Kevin J. Alcena.It is a 3 year old artilce from a Bahamian,but it clearly has relevance today.
——————————————————————————————-
http://macharikevinalcenaa.blogspot.com/2009/05/any-politician-who-supports-csme-should.html
“ANY POLITICIAN WHO SUPPORTS CSME SHOULD NOT BE ELECTED
by Dr. Kevin J. Alcena
In the face of an uncertain future, many Caribbean nations are advocating integration as an attempt to cope with the perceived impediments to growth, namely: small size, economic fragmentation and dependence on extraregional markets. The rationale behind integration being that by pooling local resources and markets, greater economic and social development can occur as opposed to “going it alone”. It is also envisaged that through integration, the Caribbean will develop a stronger bargaining position relative to the global economy (Chernick, 1978, p.5).
Economic integration takes place when a group of countries in the same region combine together to create an economic alliance with a common tariff barrier towards non-members while allowing free trade among members. The system works best when participating nations are relatively equal in size and stage of development and have a strong commitment to coordinate and rationalize their joint industrial growth patterns (Todaro, 1989, p. 454).
Caribbean leaders are seemingly convinced that integration is the system of the future drawing support from the momentous unification of Europe as well as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between the U.S.A. and Canada with Mexico on the verge of becoming a third major partner in this historic alliance. In his article entitled “The West Indies Beyond 1992″, the then Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago, A.N.R.
Robinson pointed to this global
restructuring and writes:-
… against this background of historic change and
historic appraisal, the Caribbean could be in danger
of becoming a backwater, separated from the main
current of human advance into the twenty-first
century… (The Report of The West Indian
Commission, 1992, p.3).
Prime Minister Erskine Sandiford of Barbados, in his opening remarks at the eleventh summit in 1990, expressed his concept of integration and its significance for the Caribbean:-
For me, the Caribbean Community, the Integrated
States of the Caribbean of which I have spoken, is
much more than the efforts to secure free internal
trade, or a common external tariff, or the
harmonization of fiscal incentives or a common
industrial, agricultural or transportation policy, or the
establishment of a common market, or even the
formation of a full economic union. For me, the
Caribbean Community is nothing more and nothing
less than the efforts of the Caribbean people to create
a new and unique political entity that respects the
national sovereignty of each individual territory, while
at the same time pooling aspects of that sovereignty
and pooling aspects of their resources in order to
promote and preserve peace, promote and preserve
democracy, promote and preserve fundamental
human rights and the rule of law, and promote and
preserve economic and social development among
Caribbean people (The Report of The West Indian
Commission, 1992, p. 467).
Lester Thurow expresses the view that the system that governs the world economy is changing and by the first half of the twenty-first century, a new system of quasi trading blocks utilizing managed trade will emerge (1992, p. 16). In addition, Hazel Johnson argues that regionalization is a strong force that has and will continue to effect standards of living throughout the world (1991, p. 1).
With regard to integration reducing the dependency on developed countries, Arthur Lewis supports increased trade between less developed countries on the basis that:-
a) less developed countries possess all the necessary requirements for growth,
b) less developed countries have enough land to feed themselves if properly cultivated,
c) less developed countries are capable of acquiring manufacturing skills and accumulating much needed capital for modernization.
Thus, development in the long run does not have to be dependent on the assistance of developed countries (1978, pp. 69-71).
Michael Manley also supports integration on the grounds that unless there is greater cooperation between developing countries, Third World countries are at risk of losing their political independence due to economic reality. He argues that it is impossible to develop internally and in isolation. Given that the First World has no interest in reforming the way the world economy functions, Third World countries have no choice but to attempt development from within their own resources and create its own opportunities (1991, pp. 101-104).
The allegation that the Bahamas government is stalling on the Caribbean Single Market Economy (CSME) and characterized as “defrauding” the proposed economic bloc is tantamount to a slap in the face of the country. The Bahamas, as one of the most prosperous countries in the region, has been a significant contributor to the progress of the Caribbean region. Our immigration policy has been very accommodative of our Caribbean neighbours; however, we cannot officially, through any trade or regional integration, open the doors to our economy that would allow for the free movement of labour.
The concept of free market is conceived with the intention to advance the interest of each member of the proposed trading bloc as first priority. The Bahamas, as a member of the proposed trading bloc, cannot afford to negotiate an integration policy that runs counter to its national economic, social and political interests. Nations all over the world agree to integration agreement only to the extent that its domestic economic, political and social structures are safeguarded from the impact of such integration, hence not compromising our national sovereignty. The United Kingdom is a prime example of a country that has so far limited the level of its integration with the European Union on the basis of its national realities, without an alluded insinuation that its policy position is selfish and deceitful in its commitment to the EU.
The Bahamas has made its position glaringly clear both by the previous and present governments regarding its concern for the clause allowing the free flow of labour within the Caribbean, because of the unique nature of our economy. Despite the Bahamas’ significantly high level of employment, coupled with the high per capita income (the third best in the Western Hemisphere), our economy is not comfortably durable and sustainable in the face of potential high influx of labour that the ratification of the CSME as it is currently demanding. In essence, and of necessity, members of the proposed CSME must understand and appreciate the uniqueness of each member’s economy, the political structures and its social demographics vis-à-vis the base of each country’s economic sustainability.
Any government policy, irrespective of the basis of formulation, that creates imbalance on its social structure, particularly in the level of unemployment, will certainly create negative social and economic externalities that will impact the sustainability and growth of its economy, hence, defeating the purpose of the CSME. The CSME can only strive and help to elevate other member countries’ economies if the economies of its member states are progressive and structurally developing: anything short of that achievement negate the intent of the integration effort.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the Bahamas stalling in the agreement of the free movement of labour clause for as long as the economy remains unviable for such clause to be implemented within the Bahamas’ territory. Though it is acceptable and necessary that CSME be concluded in due time to allow for a stronger Caribbean voice in the negotiation for the Free Trade Areas of the Americas (FTAA), the Bahamas still cannot assent to a clause that is clearly evident will not support the government’s policy towards the consolidation of its economic policies, particularly at this time of global economic uncertainties, and constant international threats of terrorism that could at moment’s notice undermine the tourism-based economy of ours.
The Caribbean leaders, in pursuit of the introduction of the CSME, must exercise good sense of judgement in understanding the practical reality of the fact that the Bahamas’ economy is not sustainably strong enough to allow for the free movement of labour. This is similar to the context which most of the Caribbean countries are agitating against – the inclusion of the FTAA clause allowing the free flow of investment and services. The leaders of the CSME must undertake a study of the various countries within the region to understand each country’s potential economic latitude to enable them to appreciate grey areas where there are genuine concerns to allow for concessions. The act of blindly insisting on the general acceptance of the entire agreement in the integration charter is inconsistent with the ideals of the region’s integration, as this would have dire consequences on many professions in the Bahamas, namely: medical/pharmacy and legal, among many others.
Integration must be constructive and provide the enabling environment for each country to grow without imposing significant inhibiting factor(s) that would impede the growth and development of any member country within the region. Therefore, it is frivolous for leaders of the CSME to slam the Bahamas about procrastinating or stalling the labour agreement. The Bahamas is not stalling, but opting out of the labour agreement, because it is not in the best interest of the Bahamas, at least at this time.”
Veritas // June 28, 2009 at 6:04 AM
If the current Government makes mistakes on those issues, there will always be the opportunity to correct them. If, however, we make very serious mistakes on immigration, then it is highly unlikely that we can correct them in the future.
___________
And it is only strong, visionary governments that take on those issues and deal with them.
Themis // June 28, 2009 at 7:05 AM
@lholder and LIB,
A reservation does not have always to exclude the application of part of the treaty, it can also relate to how the provisions of the treaty are to be interpreted. For example, Egypt made a reservation in respect of Article 4 of the treaty under discussion concerning how the term “members of the family” was to be interpreted.
livinginbarbados // June 28, 2009 at 9:00 AM
@LHolder
I think we are now broadly agreed on what ratification means. However, your “n practice, however, if the country is sincere in its intention to adopt the Convention, it would take the necessary steps to enact the Convention into domestic law and to amend any subsidiary legislation at the same time or in the same sitting of Parliament. Thus, the time between undertaking the appropriate legislative activities and formally informing the UN should not be long.” is worth thinking about.
Ratification can often be a problem simply because of the democratic process that changes governments, and an administration that is a signatory may be sincere in its intent to ratify, but then it loses office. The successor administration may not be on board with the treaty/convention so would never want to be bound by its being ratified. There is nothing insincere about that, as political philosophies can be broad.
I am also no legal expert so cannot but give my impressions on Articles 88 and 91. I think the idea is that reservations should aim to remain within the general spirit of the treaty/convention.
@Themis
Your comments are not trivial in the context of multicultural societies, where notions of family and dependents can very greatly.
For my part, no need to go further, as the lawyers will have a field day anyway.
ROK // June 28, 2009 at 9:13 AM
@Themis
You are simply belligerent.
@IHolder
“But in light of Article 88, I do not have the legal expertise to determine how Article 91 would be interpreted given the provisions of Article 88.”
Just responding to what you have posted and with no prior intimate knowledge of the Convention in question, Article 91: 2 is instructive:
2. A reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the present Convention shall not be permitted.
This is a basic principle of agreements because if the foundation of the Convention is undermined, then the Convention falls through; there is no convention.
Hence, it would seem that to do the following would offend the convention so gravely as to undermine it:
“A State ratifying or acceding to the present Convention may not exclude the application of any Part of it, or, without prejudice to article 3, exclude any particular category of migrant workers from its application.”
This means that to “exclude any particular category of migrant workers from its application” would be a serious breach of the Convention and could not be permitted as a reservation.
Another point which must be drawn to the attention of this debate is that many conventions state, as part of its terms, that any local law existing on the statute books a country which is contrary to the convention or treaty; the treaty or convention shall prevail.
Therefore, to say that local law is required to bring conventions and treaties under local authority is not all correct. Give me a chance and I will find an example. I think that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is one with such provisions.
Themis // June 28, 2009 at 10:08 AM
I am afraid, belligerence and all, that no treaty could state that, ROK. I should be surprised if you could cite any example. The treaty is simply international law and in those countries, mainly European, which have the MONIST system, raticication of the treaty automatically makes it part of the local legal system. In Barbados and others which have a DUALIST system, ratification does not make it part of the local law immediately…legislation must be passed by Parliament to incorporate the treaty into municipal or local law. Check any text, Bishop or Harris on International Law..or look up the words “monist” and “dualist”.
ROK // June 28, 2009 at 10:22 AM
@ IHolder
In briefly perusing the Rights of the Child Convention, below is the closest I saw to one such provision
Article 41
Nothing in the present Convention shall affect any provisions which are more conducive to the realization of the rights of the child and which may be contained in:
(a) The law of a State party; or
(b) International law in force for that State.
What this also implies is that the Convention will affect anything which is less conducive to the realisation of children’s rights.
In the end, if you look at how conventions and treatise are written, they seek to respect sovereignty and culture and generally attempt not to be even minutely offensive to any state, while at the same time addressing the objective of the instrument. Hence in many parts you will see that the provisions allow a country to set its definition or set certain standards.
For example, Article 1
“For the purposes of the present Convention, a child means every human being below the age of eighteen years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier.”
Example 2 is drawn from Article 3:3. “States Parties shall ensure that the institutions, services and facilities responsible for the care or protection of children shall conform with the standards established by competent authorities, particularly in the areas of safety, health, in the number and suitability of their staff, as well as competent supervision.”
In the circumstances, it is hard for a country to go wrong on those kinds of provisions. However, a most salient point is whether after ratification, where ratification entailed a passage through Parliament of the Convention but the law does not change, any court can overturn the law if it does not conform to the convention.
The basis would be that both are law and in terms of legal procedure one law cannot contradict another; law must be certain. Hence, the court would be required to state what is the law and it would arrive at this by a series of deductions and assumptions. Of course there are some, what I would term as reckless, decisions where the previous standing law, traditional law or custom was enforced as a message sent to parliament by the judiciary basically saying, “get your act together”.
I say reckless because one of the assumptions is that Parliament did not intend for the law to bring hardship on people.
In any immigration convention, one would assume that the contents of such a document would hinge moreso on the treatment of the person and any associated rights established by the state in question, as it relates to qualification requirements set out by the state.
I would therefore want to respectfully disagree that any error made now cannot be corrected in the future. Any time that a state is faced with a breach of its laws it can act; how it acts will be the only question and if its officers act illegally in carrying out its functions then that behaviour should be called to account. When this becomes a concern, the decision is merely incidental to the unprofessional behaviour.
If you check carefully, you will see that the Prime Minister dealt with all these points in his address.
ROK // June 28, 2009 at 10:23 AM
Sorry, I should have said that the PM dealt with them definitively.
ROK // June 28, 2009 at 10:25 AM
@Themis
I will take it that you can’t read, OK.
Themis // June 28, 2009 at 10:32 AM
Will you do as I requested and cut out the pompasetting, ROK? Your very first proposition as to the Convention not affecting more beneficial provisions in local law as meaning that less beneficial provisions are thereby excluded betrays a gross ignorance of the law and further discussion with you is meaningless, I am afraid.
lholder // June 28, 2009 at 11:18 AM
Themis, LIB, and ROK,
Thanks for the clarifications.
The Migrants Workers’ Convention is probaly the most detailed and complex of the UN international conventions. Being not a lawyer, I find it challenging to make sense of some of the articles.
ROK, what I meant by not having a chance to correct it in the future is that if you ended up with a situation where there were actually fifty or sixty or seventy thousand undocumented immigrants, then it would be nigh impossible to retrieve the situation.
ROK // June 28, 2009 at 11:32 AM
IHolder
If you give them status, they can’t be undocumented anymore. If you allow them to stay knowing full well that they are undocumented then they will be staying at your pleasure; although residual or maybe contingent rights may step in; including contributions to personal income tax and NIS because you don’t have to be Barbadian to pay these and these departments don’t seem to be concerned with the immigration question.
Just trying to come to grips with a position that may be irreversible??? It would certainly be difficult to retrieve such a situation without incensing people.
An interesting point is that a government (political party) regularising such numbers may result in a windfall at the polls.
livinginbarbados // June 28, 2009 at 11:54 AM
@LHolder
Clarfication aids understanding. You’re welcome.
@ROK
You point out something I have tried to draw attention to: regularising illegal immigrants does not equate to removal of this group (and the PM’s citing the initial results that came in June, we see that most people seeking regularisation will be allowed to stay). The government stands to gain from this, as you note, with more revenue potential from having people’s work/economic activities visible and legal, so taxable (income tax on wages and rent, NIS, VAT, etc.). To the extent that these regularised people may have need to recourse to public services, the government should then have a better handle of that burden. It’s hard to judge if the revenue gain will just be a plus or if higher costs will actually be incurred by providing these services (my impression is that these costs will not move much–limits on additional staff and pay, mainly–but the quality of service may suffer).
mash up & buy back // June 28, 2009 at 12:45 PM
Living In Barbados
I think it is time I step in an correct this mantra you have been repeating;’that most persons seeking regularisation will be allowed to stay’.
First of all,the P.M. stated that since the 1st of June – for the past 3 weeks there were 3 raids of which 47 non nationals were sent out of the country – 34 of whom were guyanese.
Of these 47 – 8 persons were deported,half of whomwere guyanese.
So deportations and removals are occurring.
Then the government received 177 request for extensions of their stay less than half of those – 77 – were guyanese.
Please remeber that we also have a vibrant off shore sector and request for extensions and work permits also come from that sector.
Everything is not about the guyanese or jamaicans or vincentian illegal unskilled workers.
380 short term work permits applications were made – the majority 294 were for guyanese – they are not yet decided.
Most of these 294 guyanese I beleive will be for agricultural workers since the Acting Permanent Secretay in the minstry Gilbert Greaves said last week on VOB Sunday Brasstacks programme, that the department is not issuing work permits for the construction industry right now.
So where is the evidence that most of those persons who are illegal are having their staus regularised.
Are you a purveyor of misinformation or just have difficulty following this immigration saga?
What Prime minister Thompson sought to do is to debunk the lie being spread abroad by those with evil agendas that persons are not getting opportunity to get more time – that is have their stay extended.
You keep failing to restate the prime minster’s word that ‘he was resolute and that there will be no backing down of his course on Managed Migration’.
livinginbarbados // June 28, 2009 at 1:21 PM
@MUBB
What mantra? The PM said “I have no reason to believe that the majority of these applications will not be approved.” Black and white in the papers. His words, not mine. You add speculation to his statements: “I believe” you say. As was discussed last week, neither the PS or Sen. McLean gave any information pertinent to illegal immigration. Please don’t blame me for that. I have no issue with the PM’s resolution–he’s the head of government. I cannot say if he will change his stance. Politicians have been known to do that often.
mash up & buy back // June 28, 2009 at 1:50 PM
The P.M. said of the 380 short term work permit – 294 of which were for guyanese – most of these short term work permits will be approved.
A work permit is usually granted on the application of an employer and since it is short term in nature it is fora short period of time – usually between 3 to 6 months.
Regularising an illegal non national status as living in babrbados is suggesting – means giving the person or persons long term residency permission to stay and work in Barbados.
Nothing the P.M. says suggested this. is what is happening to the illegals.
He in fact stated to the contrary – that is – he will be going full steam ahead with his managed migration plan.
livinginbarbados // June 28, 2009 at 1:54 PM
One of my contentions has been that the policy on amnesty was not well framed in any sort of numerical context and that makes the whole issue subject to a lot of speculation. Some said the numbers were not important. Some said the numbers will be given in due course.
When the PM or other ministers stand up and make pronouncements the general expectation is that these will be better understood if you point out where you started and where you will end. So, in the budget discussion, for example, everyone would be shocked if the PM/Finance Minister gave data for just the last month. At the least, everyone could go to the central bank bulletins and see how the latest month stacks up with whatever period they wanted. When the police commissioner discusses crime, he talks about where things are relative to some past period and what the expecations are for the future. With BWA the call for a rate increase is predicated on the quantified parlous state of its finances. Why? Because people need to understand that context. Not so with immigration, it seems, and I personally am bewildered by that. If the attitude of the Immigration Department has not hardened in the month of June that is good, but why could the PM not just say of offer a statement such as “During the previous 12 months…..” then everyone would see and hear how the normal activity had been? Instead, everyone and their mother is coming with their story and interpretation. The PR leaves a lot to be desired.
As I argued before it makes a huge difference if the base is nearer 5000 or closer to 50000. The figures given yesterday cannot make much sense unless you know from which of these very different scenarios you are starting.
I’m happy to leave it to the press conference now promised in Georgetown, and I hope that those present will be pressing for more information, because there is a general need to know.
David // June 28, 2009 at 1:58 PM
@livinginbarbados Submitted on 2009/06/28 at 1:54pm
Is it not a reasonable conclusion Prime Minister Thompson’s response yesterday was framed to respond to the hyperbole and lose statements emanating from countries in Barbados and across the Caribbean?
livinginbarbados // June 28, 2009 at 2:09 PM
@MUBB
You have your interpretation, and I have mine. All I have read (and I am no lawyer) mentions regularisation, without definition. Given that illegal immigrants are in different circumstances, I do not see how you can say that ‘regularisation’ means long term residency. It should mean that the documents you have to stay (and work) in the country are in order. If you are supposed to be on a short term contract (you say 3-6 months) that is now clear, and does not preclude its renewal. I know of people (non-Caricom nationals) who have been here for the past few years on a series of work permits.
The only details of which I am aware are the conditions to be met:
The conditions of Government’s amnesty are as follows:
a. Persons must submit the application for immigration status along with supporting documentation to the Immigration Department by December 1, 2009.
b. Applicants must be able to substantiate their claim that they have been living in Barbados for at least eight years prior to December 31, 2005.
c. Applicants must be currently employed and must provide evidence of their employment status.
d. Applicants must pass through security background checks.
Anonymous // June 28, 2009 at 2:31 PM
I am very amazed at the amount of discussion on this topic.
The foreign reserves of this country cannot support our livestyles.We need to be very cautious until at least the tourism sector recovers.
Even if we could mange with the existing immigrants ,we simply must discourage others from coming.
Anonymous // June 28, 2009 at 2:32 PM
I am very amazed at the amount of discussion on this topic.
The foreign reserves of this country cannot support our lifestyles.We need to be very cautious until at least the tourism sector recovers.
Even if we could mange with the existing immigrants ,we simply must discourage others from coming.
livinginbarbados // June 28, 2009 at 2:34 PM
@David
We had the discussion last week about Sen. McLean and what she did not say. But, the PS of the Immigration Department was in the studio the whole program (some lamented that Sen. McLean did not have more time but as I said the government does not need talk radio to get out its message) and I must admit I cannot recall him citing a single figure.
If the media have driven the debate is that a move in a good direction, even though you may not like the direction? Have you not been lambasting them for being supine (not your word, but I think it fits)?
I pity the PM if he has to be back stopping his civil servants and ministers. But, if your interpretation makes you happy go with it.
livinginbarbados // June 28, 2009 at 2:38 PM
@Anonymous @ 2.32pm
“I am very amazed at the amount of discussion on this topic.”
Things that matter to people should get them agitated and they should speak up. Even though I may not like the tone and language some adopt, and I am here taking the occasional lick, it’s healthy (in the broadest of senses–though I need reinforcements :-)). If you have an apathetic citizenry then woe betide you.
livinginbarbados // June 28, 2009 at 2:44 PM
As a total aside, can someone point me to something of use and value on the Barbados GIS website?
ROK // June 28, 2009 at 3:01 PM
@livinginbarbados
“If you have an apathetic citizenry then woe betide you.”
Very true; I think we are a recovering one. Lucky it did not go any further.
ROK // June 28, 2009 at 3:06 PM
Yes, it would be useful to any fairy with a magic wand to find the address of a location where they can go to practice making things disappear.
livinginbarbados // June 28, 2009 at 3:15 PM
@ROK
I try to keep things in perspective. Look at Michael Jackson’s debt of US$400+ millions (before the cancelled comeback concert, that may add US$300 million), and think of Barbados’ external reserves or its debt level.
ROK // June 28, 2009 at 4:19 PM
@livinginbarbados
I try to keep things simple too. I don’t know how long you have been following the movement of reserves, but the pattern has not changed. Like how “Busta sow and Manley reap”.
Rumplestilskin // June 28, 2009 at 4:59 PM
There are a few issues here that need to be mentioned.
Firstly, let us focus on the main issue, which is the regularisation of immigration status in these islands.
Is is correct that,
- a country must establish proper policies and procedures for governing its citizenship and residence. To suggest otherwise is ignorant and completely out of line with international policies, particularly in light of events post September 11th.
Can you imagine if the international community including the USA did not think that we have control of our borders?
Every where we turn to on the internet we read of terrorism and drug smuggling.
One of the methods used to counteract such illicit activities is the control of borders, example being the huge discussion currently on the USA and Mexican border.
So, along with all of the infinite other activities that Barbados must comply with internationally, we also must secure our borders. While not accusing any other nationality specifically of implication in illicit activities, the mere inadequacy of our control, would facilitate illicit activity, by whomever.
This is a given and all the people who work in international agencies know this.
- It is a policy internationally used, that one must apply for Visas or residency in order to enter and live in any country.
Why should Barbados be any different?
- For a working Visa, one must adhere to specific regulations, including approval of specific qualifications and skills, including clean criminal records etc. How do we know whether any or indeed how many of the incoming immigrants have clean records? Why should we not know?
Therefore, the Barbados Government is merely adhering to an international approach in addressing this issue.
That this was not addressed before is more of an indictment on the previous adminstration than on the current one for acting on the issue.
I am not saying that Guyanese or any other islanders cannot work here.
Indeed, on other discussion topics, I have noted that other non-nationals from other geographic locations have been sought for jobs that should easily be filled by Barbadians and raise this as part of the issue.
What I am saying is that the policies and procedures of immigration, must be regularised and the Government is right to do so.
The question then is, why is this issue confrontational, why is this an issue in the first place?
The answer lies in who benefits from the furor.
The Opposition, quite unnecessarily in my opinion, makes an issue out of this and perceivably attempts to gain political mileage.
The leaders of other Caricom nations, cry foul, in order to protect an easy job market for their citizens i.e. Barbados.
This is highly unnecessary, as no one has said that Guyanese or any others will not work here.
The issue is the proper regularisation of all persons entering, such that Government planning and actions, from infrastructural to social services, can be managed effectively.
Indeed, I recommended joint ventures between Barbados and Guyana, in commercial enterprises such as vegetable production and distribution, on a previous discussion elsewhere.
The issue of anti-Guyanese sentiment etc, does not hold.
On the issue of Caricom viability, this issue is a red herring, introduced to cloud the issue.
On another blog discussion, I raised the matter of the discussion and statements by the PM of T&T, St.Vincent and Grendad, that occurred last year, well before the matter of immigration in Barbados, came to the fore.
That discussion referred to an intention of those Governments, T&T etc, to form a political and economic union, without indicating any relationship to Caricom.
It was also then stated that the discussions were close to closing with a timeframe in mind.
How could those Governemtns have even thought of entering into such a union, without considering the impact on Caricom?
By the evidence, it is clear that Caricom was not even considered, or considered irrelevant to such union.
You cannot have little sub-unions within Caricom, it would defeat the intention and purpose of Caricom, not to mention make the administration, setting of policies and operations, unmaneagable.
This was evidence that within the minds of those leaders and indeed, by the intended action of union, Caricom is and will be irrelevant.
Thus, any accusations blaming the current Government of Barbados for its actions within the context of Caricom, are not only trite but irrelevant and merely an attempt to place blame.
The PM of T&T, the PM of St.Vincent, the PM of Grenada must answer to the expected political union with the islands, as having a bearing on the future viability of Caricom.
This is critical to going forward.
Recently, the PM of T&T has raised his concern for the islands in the light of the gloabl economic crisis, noting that they need T&T’s support.
I reiterate, that the timing of discussions on the aforementioned union, made it completely unrelated to this latest matter being discussed, of the Barbados immigration regularisation.
The reasons for the T&T Government’s interest in the islands, may be very interesting, possibly having more to do with maritime boundaries than anything else, unless PM Manning’s actions are truly altruistic.
Nevertheless, the conclusion that must be reached is that Government is not only acting within its sovereign rights, as ststed by others, but out of necessity in applying international codes and in order to govern effectively, as is their mandate.
Peace
lholder // June 29, 2009 at 1:11 PM
David,
How do I submit articles in pdf so that they can be retrieved by interested readers?
David // June 29, 2009 at 1:26 PM
@lholder
Email to BU and we will insert the file in the relevant comment box.
lholder // June 29, 2009 at 1:46 PM
David,
What is the e-mail address?
David // June 29, 2009 at 2:11 PM
@lholder
Click on the button on the top right of this page or on the Feedback button. Both options will get to us.
We avoid typing the email to avoid spamming.
Day Watcher // June 29, 2009 at 4:34 PM
Barbadians may not have paid attention when people like Pol Pot, Benito Mussolini, Adolph Hitler, Idi Amin, Slobodan Milosevic, Charles Taylor Osama Bin Laden, Chemical Ali were terrorizing and slaughtering innocent people.
But since January 15, 2008 (with the help of Clico’s millions) Barbadians would have been monitoring the rise of a Dictator.
They would have seen David Thompson of Barbados and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ali Khamenei of Iran, in action.
For while in his hard-line policy, David Thompson has ban the Opposition from CBC – in Iran, the same is being done to the Opposition.
It is why many would willingly agree that David Thompson most resembles Pol Pot and Hitler.
Still there will be little doubt that these men carry: “The Mark of the Beast.”
livinginbarbados // July 1, 2009 at 9:49 AM
In seeking to see what sort of balance there is in people’s arguments, I’m intrigued at the relative silence (so far) regarding today’s Editorial in The Advocate, entitled “What’s the real number?”, http://www.barbadosadvocate.com/newsitem.asp?more=editorial&NewsID=4617. In case the link does not work after today, I reproduce the full text below:
7/1/2009
When discussing a topic as controversial and emotionally charged as immigration, even the most respected of thinkers can find themselves carried away on a tide of rhetoric. What often manages to bring persons around to some sort of understanding is the use of cold, hard facts – that is, statistics.
For this reason the Prime Minister’s presentation of the figures compiled by the Immigration Department was welcomed by many who were eager to get a clearer picture of the problem. According to the Immigration Department’s records, four Guyanese citizens have been deported since June 1. However, the picture has once again been blurred with the publication of Guyana’s own immigration figures in the Stabroek News yesterday. In a brief interview with Foreign Minister Caroline Rodrigues-Birkett on Monday, it was revealed that Guyanese Immigration records show that 24 Guyanese have been deported from Barbados for the month of June.
The disparity between these two figures is too great to be overlooked and begs further exploration.
First, the wording of the statements of the two Government officials must be analysed. Some may say this is an exercise in semantics, but when it comes to the Law, this is of paramount importance!
Referring to visits of immigration and police personnel to 15 residences since June 1, the Prime Minister said: “These visits led to the detention and removal of 47 non-nationals, 34 of whom were Guyanese nationals who were in the country illegally. Eight persons were deported, 4 of whom were Guyanese”. Meanwhile, the Stabroek article, while not quoting the Guyanese Foreign Minister verbatim, is worded as follows: “…for June, so far, the foreign minister said, 24 Guyanese have been deported from the island”.
Now, information from the Barbados Immigration Department revealed that when a person is “removed” they are given notice that they are expected to leave the country and should not return for at least one year. However, if a person is “deported” they are issued with a deportation order that is signed by the Minister and they are banned from re-entering the country until such order is lifted by the Minister.
Therefore, it begs the question – were both officials using the same terminology? Or was one official being a bit less precise with the circumstances under which some of these 24 Guyanese have returned their home country?
If the latter is the case, the picture once again changes.
If 34 Guyanese have been notified of removal and 4 deported, it follows that there are 38 Guyanese individuals who should have returned to Guyana since June 9th (the date of the first immigration visit in June according to the Prime Minister). This brings the figure much closer to the 24 persons recorded by the Guyanese Immigration Department, although there are still questions to be asked as to the whereabouts of the unaccounted for 14 persons.
At this point, this is all conjecture on our part, but it is hoped that our reasoning is closer to the truth than what the Stabroek News article is suggesting – that the figure of four deportees “contrasts sharply with immigration figures” in Guyana of 24. A contrast of that magnitude calls into question the honesty of both Barbadian and Guyanese officials in providing information to the public and is an insult to the intelligence of the populace of both countries. Surely the Minister responsible for Immigration in Barbados would remember signing 20 more deportation orders than reported?
Statistics are vital in such complex matters and should not be left open to interpretation, which is just what has happened. Clarification on this issue is
warranted.