Submitted by Lindsay Holder
Lindsay Holder
The following articles were submitted to the local press for publication. To date, three of these articles have been published. There are status statements at the end of those articles that have been published.
255 responses so far ↓
The Scout // June 29, 2009 at 9:52 PM
Most of these Treaties we are reading about that is claimed Barbados has signed on too, I’m reading for the first time. May I suggest that when these things come up, which ever government is in power in Barbados, that the matter/s be discussed with the citizens before committing us to these treaties. If bajans are not united on these matters, one day we would wake up and find that Barbados is “not our very own.”
General Lee // June 29, 2009 at 9:56 PM
http://bajan.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/immigration-blues.pdf
Page 2:
“The labour shortages in the construction sector were a result of three factors; aging
population, insufficient vocational training places for all the individuals who were desirous of
becoming artisans, and an excess demand for labour that was so great that even if training
opportunities were available for all those individuals desirous of becoming artisans the demand
still would not have been fully satisfied.”
A lot, if not most of the recent non-nationals working in construction, were unskilled on arrival in Barbados and learnt the trade on the job.
Let them tell you how they refused to hire unskilled Bajans but hired these unskilled non-nationals.
Let them tell you how they gave them “job work” and then had to pay they Bajan workers to correct “bad work”.
Let them tell you how, even though there is a slow down in the industry, qualified non-nationals are refusing to work for the money they want to pay.
As long as the mentality of, more from the client and less to the workers, means more in the bank remains, the illegal worker will always be in demand.
People need to be aware that there are construction companies and contractors that did not hire non-nationals and had no problems sourcing Barbadian artisans at the height of the construction boom.
David // June 30, 2009 at 1:53 AM
Barbadians owe a debt of gratitude to Lindsay Holder for taking this debate to the next level.
Again we ask where are the journalists? For example in this situation we would have tried to solicit responses from David Commissiong, Peter Wickham and Rickey Singh by asking the hard questions raised by the contradictions of their respective public offerings on this matter.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
On another matter, BU received reports that yesterday a heavy police presence visited the River Minibus terminal and several people were seen running away, literally scattering. It pains us to report the fact that illegal immigrants would rather run from the law than visit the immigration office to start the process of regularization in the amnesty period. This is sad and it needs to be addressed.
livinginbarbados // June 30, 2009 at 5:23 AM
@David
“On another matter, BU received reports that yesterday a heavy police presence visited the River Minibus terminal and several people were seen running away, literally scattering. It pains us to report the fact that illegal immigrants would rather run from the law than visit the immigration office to start the process of regularization in the amnesty period. This is sad and it needs to be addressed.”
The report and pictures in the Sunday Sun (June 28, page 4A) talked about police stepping up surveillance and conducting a raid to stamp out unruly behaviour.
You talk of “several people running away” and somehow get to a point of saying “It pains us to report the fact that illegal immigrants would rather run…” What fact?
David // June 30, 2009 at 5:47 AM
@LIB
We did not write it but it seems you can only operate in Black or White realms and cannot accept that in a 166 sq mile country observations made are valid when seen in a context.
livinginbarbados // June 30, 2009 at 6:08 AM
@David
Not at all. I have lived in the world of grey a lot. In the same way that my English accent may lead someone to assume something about me, it’s dangerous to think that “observations are valid when seen in context”. What context?
White man sees black man approaching white woman….assumes crime about to happen…shoots black man? People turning tail in their cars when they see a police roadblock in Barbados, is telling me what? (As can be seen on the highway at Warrens occasionally.) Hordes of criminals who don’t want to be searched? People who have not paid their insurance and road tax.
David // June 30, 2009 at 6:17 AM
We have a large group of mainly Indo-Guyanese who run at the arrival of the police in the bus stand. If you were a casual observer in the prevailing climate what would you read into it, nothing?
livinginbarbados // June 30, 2009 at 6:40 AM
Had you written “a group of people [who seemed/were known to be Indo-Guyanese]…” then there would have been no problem. Let me say that your prose was too economical with the truth (to borrow the words of Dame Thatcher). You can revisit your text and read it as a reader not its author.
David // June 30, 2009 at 6:44 AM
It was deliberate and had noting to do with being economical with the truth.
Technician // June 30, 2009 at 6:48 AM
That is so true General Lee….so damn true.
David // June 30, 2009 at 6:55 AM
@Tech and General Lee
It is and observation which Straight Talk has made before, follow the money!
Carson C. Cadogan // June 30, 2009 at 7:33 AM
livinginbarbados feels it necessary to jump in into the debate on immigration every chance he gets.
He is from a country, like Guyana, which also is known for exporting its citizens to the ends of the world. They repay host countries by causing mayhem and murder which are the strong points of Jamaicans.
I believe that livinginbarbados is being self serving because he knows that next might be Janaicans. We seem to hoards of them in Barbados too.
Anonymous // June 30, 2009 at 7:41 AM
Should B’dos leave CARICOM, the CCJ and CSME? I believe it should.
Bermuda, the Cayman Is., BVI and even Turks and Caicos Is. are all doing well and these are not part of CARICOM and receive little aid from Britain.
We should limit our involvement with the rest of the C’bean to UWI, CXC, CDB and the WI cricket team. We also need to make every effort to reduce the influence of Trinidad in our economic affairs. The CLICO troubles may be a golden opportunity in this regard. We need to take away our support from the Nation group, BNB , Shipping and Trading and MaCal associated companies. Our focus right now is on the Guyanese as these impact on the working class end of the economic spectrum but at the managerial/professional end, the Trinidadians are undermining our control of Barbados to the benefit of Trinidad. If we don’t something soon Barbados will be a colony of the Trinidad/Guyana mafia with crime and violence the everyday experience of ordinary Bajans.
Themis // June 30, 2009 at 7:45 AM
David, you are wrong on this one. You merely stated that several people were running away and expect us to draw aconclusion from that that they were East Indian Guyanese illegal immigrants? That’s preposterous xenophobia if I ever saw it! You’ll have your defenders on this thread however. And Carson, after they come for the Jamaicans, who will be next? People with or without University degrees? Blackish people? Those with locks?
David // June 30, 2009 at 8:09 AM
@Themis
It was not our intention to deliberately point to East Indian people running but to the general point that we have people living in fear of the law and this is not healthy for the well being of a stable society which has been a sacrosanct characteristic of the Barbados society through the years.
livinginbarbados // June 30, 2009 at 8:13 AM
@Mr Cadogan
Interesting though your comment may appear, it’s odd. Free speech, like free thought does not have bounds. How strange that one should seek to comment on something interesting, and may have bearing of national import. I wont bother to even argue that someone might have asked me to comment, but that is really irrelevant.
The problem with speculation about people’s motives, as we have seen with parsing text, is that joining dots is only easy in two dimensions.
As you say, I come from a country “known for exporting its citizens to the ends of the world. They repay host countries by causing mayhem and murder which are the strong points of Jamaicans”. Perhaps, as far as Barbados is concerned [and other places too, if you are so inclined] you can help enlighten us with the mayhem and murder instances. Or was it just a convenient throw away, that is factually incorrect but might make you feel good?
Livinginbarbados // June 30, 2009 at 8:49 AM
@Anonymous/
“Bermuda, the Cayman Is., BVI and even Turks and Caicos Is. are all doing well and these are not part of CARICOM and receive little aid from Britain.”
They (and Anguilla) are part of CARICOM, but not full members, merely associates, because they are not independent nation states. They are British overseas territories, sovereign to the UK.
To quote the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the independent territories are “reliant on UK aid”. You can check the evidence given to the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee.
livinginbarbados // June 30, 2009 at 8:53 AM
To correct:
To quote the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the OVERSEAS territories are “reliant on UK aid”. You can check the evidence given to the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee.
The Scout // June 30, 2009 at 8:56 AM
An observation i made recently is a fair amount of strange face indo-guyanese in my area. What is so obvious, is that they travel in two and are seen early on morning or late at night walking around the area. They are so stupid that they are walking and speaking to everyone in the area, something that NONE of them were doing before. Could it be that they are hiding from the immigration and trying to befriend the neighbours so that we wouldn’t squeal on them? One neighbour told us that one of the indo-guyanese who cultivates some land in the area passed and offered his wife a quantity of onions and told her she can distribute them with her friends; she refused them with the reason that they had bought a bag a few days ago. This guy used to ride pass every day and don’t even speak, now he’s making offers.
Themis // June 30, 2009 at 9:24 AM
Is every East Indian a Guyanese illegal immigrant? Is every white man a businessman? Is every black man a criminal? Just think of youself, Scout, legally resident with your family in another country where you and they are the only ones of your race and there is a populist outcry for the removal of those like you. How would you feel? What would you do?
The silence of the church on this one is deafening and, I dare say, hypocritical!
Sargeant // June 30, 2009 at 9:44 AM
@Themis
The silence of the church on this one is deafening and, I dare say, hypocritical!
*************************************
Care to expand on that statement? What exactly should the church be doing?
Themis // June 30, 2009 at 10:00 AM
Sargeant, read Leviticus Chapter 19 verses 33 and 34. Should the church not apply this, without condoning illegality of course?
The Scout // June 30, 2009 at 10:07 AM
Themis
If these strangers are on holiday, we welcome them. However, my few questions are.
!.) How come these visitors are so friendly, when their hosts were not?
2.) how come the host is only now trying to be friendly after being around for over two years?
3.) Finally my statement is simple, it shows that with all the talk about Barbados, indo-guyanese are still w3illing to come to this country on holiday, plus they are being allowed to enter the country.
The Scout // June 30, 2009 at 10:17 AM
The SN is today challenging our P.M on the amount of deported guyanese. If what the Guyanese Foreign Minister is true, why did he not discuss it with the Barbados Foreign Minister? It seems Guyana, both government and SN are trying to discredit Barbados. MY government and P.M has stated his position and no shouting from Guyana will change his position. Guyana has to understand that the Barbados has a country to manage just like Jagdeo has his to manage, therefore PLEASE don’y try to tell us what we can or should do. In simple terms “back off or feel the pain.”
Adrian Hinds // June 30, 2009 at 11:08 AM
Scout you must understand that Guyanese leaders have no answers for their failures, so their approach is to deflect and point fingers at others for their shortcomings. It does not matter if it’s the UN,US,Barbados, They are all wrong and they are right just because they say so.
Has anyone heard from Randy Persuad recently?
Enuff // June 30, 2009 at 11:25 AM
Water rates up by 60% and we on another immigration thread. The government has surely found a masterful way of keeping us occupied.
livinginbarbados // June 30, 2009 at 11:28 AM
@Sargeant/Themis
The clergy/religious establishments have not been silent, and some may be able to report what has been said either from the pulpit, or in other church forums, or in temples, synagogues and other places of worship. Other than that, we are relying on the media to give us what they deem newsworthy. Read, for example, the piece in The Nation yesterday, http://www.nationnews.com/story/-Isaacs—Immigration-Issue-copy-for-web
Carson C. Cadogan // June 30, 2009 at 11:32 AM
livinginbarbados
If you have to ask me to enlighten you of instances of mayhem and murder Jamaicans commit in other peoples countries, then you are really out of it.
Just one aspect, don’t you remember the Jamaican posses which almost caused chaos in America not so long ago?
Adrian Hinds // June 30, 2009 at 11:36 AM
Enuff // June 30, 2009 at 11:25 am
Water rates up by 60% and we on another immigration thread. The government has surely found a masterful way of keeping us occupied.
————————————————
Not ENUFF being done.
save the water run off from your roof. It helps me tremendously with my water bill. I have not attach the hose to my outside tap so far for the summer, and I water my plants, vegetable garden and wash de van from my two rain barrels. I am even prepared to connect them to my toilets if the need arises. Workable approaches to combat rising water rates. Yes, we can combat rising water rates and the rising illegal immigrant population at the sametime.
PEEPING TOM // June 30, 2009 at 11:44 AM
Why are we defending ourselves? This is our Country and I feel strongly that the monies paid by the Guyana Government to place an ad in our Sunday Newspaper asking their citizens to report any form of maltreatment,should read like this :
************************************
To all Guyanesse living in Barbados illegally,PACK your Bags, COME HOME,We as a Government WILL try our best to Make things better for you ,so that you DO-NOT have to run and Hide from the authorities,We Have many resources and We will put them to good use ,so give us a call,if you do not have the monies for the flight we will pay it for you”.
**********************************
I am a proud Barbadian and I am Backing MY Prime Minister,come one Bajans,if we do not speak up we will wake up one day to realise that our Country is no longer our own ,and we are begging for a shelter.We cannot tell them how to run their Country but they are telling us what we should do,look at the size of Guyana to small Barbados ,Where are we suppose to allow these people to live? They come here,build shanties in our water zones to make us and our children sick, then some idiots say that we are discriminating against them,
this is my final take on the matter ,to any Bajan that is against the immigration policy ,all you have to do is move out of your home that you are paying a mortgage for and walk the street ,allowing these same people to live at your home in comfort, while you suffer because that is what they are asking us to do as a nation ,to sell our birthright ,keep quiet and allow them in here by the groves. **And by the way they were being deported long before elections.
livinginbarbados // June 30, 2009 at 11:44 AM
@Carson C. Cadogan
It take it from your reply that you have no information on murder and mayhem in Barbados as it relates to Jamaicans? Talk is indeed cheap.
I do remember the ‘posses’ (or “Yardees”) in the US, UK and elsewhere, but in the context of those foreign countries, your remark “causing mayhem and murder” is hyperbole. Sweeping as the statement is, it deals with a criminal minority not the migrant majority. Criminals who have joined well established areas of crime already in the US (drugs, gangs, etc.) Unlike reggae and the gully creeper, or jerk seasoning, crime is not a Jamaican creations.
Relative to size, I could take the case of the Bajan fraudster on trial in Jamaica and say something similar. But, that would be silly.
PEEPING TOM // June 30, 2009 at 11:50 AM
Adrian Hinds:
People every where pay for Water,it is not free! We are not the land of many rivers ,all we have to do is stop the wastage,washing our cars while the hose runs,watering our lawns ect,
while the rate is up by 60% it can still be managable if we will stop wasting it as we always does .
livinginbarbados // June 30, 2009 at 11:56 AM
@Adrian Hinds
At the risk of digressing on this thread, I have made some of the following remarks before, elsewhere.
The proposed increase in water rates does not come with any justification of how it will deal with the parlous financial condition of BWA. While the PM recently stated figures on the extent of the arrears, he said nothing about how a rate increase would be combined with arrears reduction to ensure that the financial situation would be improved. The IADB is supposed to be working with BWA on improving its management. But, if arrears are a major problem, the a rate increase does not address that: those who do not pay now seem unlikely to pay higher rates; those who do pay now will continue to bear the financial burden, but may now be pushed into arrears.
On ways to save water and distribute it better, no concrete proposals have been made, and many stories and instances can be cited of wasted water.
The minister concerned has noted that the current personnel is ill-equipped to fulfill the functions expected of BWA and seeks a total overhaul of recruitment.
All that said, the Budget speech several weeks ago gave no indication of what the situation for BWA would look like after the increase.
Do I hear let’s hope it improves?
Adrian Hinds // June 30, 2009 at 12:13 PM
Wuh I have no idea why Peeping Tom and LIB should address me with their otherwise valid points on BWA and water rates.
I want to continue the immigration discussion. Enuff seems to think that we should focus on the increase water rate instead. I pointed out how we can combat the water rates, and continue to combat illegal immigration at the sametime. If wunnuh want tuh talk bout water dah bad, wunnuh could guh long tuh de sea, but I gine stand right here and argue bout immigration.
Can anyone define ethnic cleansing for me? also give me a recent example, and is their not a UN convention against such that can result in a Leader/s of a country being brought before the world court on such charges?
What does it say a bout a person supposedly of high esteem who make these charges against the leader and people of a sovereign country with the bases of fact? If indeed such a person did make such charges.
livinginbarbados // June 30, 2009 at 12:30 PM
@Adrian Hinds
” I pointed out how we can combat the water rates, and continue to combat illegal immigration at the sametime.”
That’s a given, even if the combat is not in this space.
Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary (printed or online) gives a definition of ‘ethnic cleansing’ as : the expulsion, imprisonment, or killing of an ethnic minority by a dominant majority in order to achieve ethnic homogeneity. Other definitions add ‘discrimination’.
Sargeant // June 30, 2009 at 12:36 PM
@Themis
Isaacs said that “all governments had a responsibility to ensure that the laws of their countries were observed, and that law-breakers were disciplined”.
************************************
Here are the words of one representative of the Church is that not good enough? Funny when the Church speaks some of us only listen when it is the message we want to hear.
As for the direction to Leviticus do you take all the teachings n the Bible and apply them literally? The Dutch Reform Church used the bible to condone apartheid in South Africa.
I think its time that Thompson told Jagdeo/Gonsalves et al that it is time to butt out of Barbados’ internal affairs; we are “Maîtres chez nous!” Masters of our own house!”. (Rallying cry of Quebec Liberal party under Jean Lesage) Jagdeo proved that he is “Master of his House” in relation to Guyana when he didn’t even give the McDougall report the time of day and Gonsalves proved who is “Master” in relation to St. Vincent when his Director of Public Prosecutions refused to lay sexual assault charges against him.
Sargeant // June 30, 2009 at 12:45 PM
Re “ethnic cleansing”, here is the copy
http://www.stabroeknews.com/2009/news/local/06/27/sir-shridath-%E2%80%98we-forget-our-oneness-at-our-peril%E2%80%99/
Themis // June 30, 2009 at 12:56 PM
@ Sargeant,
I did not know of Canon Isaacs’ response before today, but I did not know that he spoke for the Church community in Barbados. As for Gonsalves and the DPP was this decision not to prosecute not upheld by the Courts?
lholder // June 30, 2009 at 1:28 PM
Hello Adrian,
Please see below a definition of ‘ethinc clensing’ and notes on its origin.
One definition of ethnic cleansing is as follows:
“The systematic elimination of an ethnic group or groups from a region or society, as by deportation, forced emigration, or genocide.”
The term ‘ethnic cleansing’ is a contentious and ill-defined one used extensively from May 1992 onwards by the international media, Western politicians, and diplomats to describe a systematic policy of mass killings, deportation, rape, internment, and intimidation engaged in by rival ethnic groups of the former Yugoslav republic of Bosnia-Hercegovina with the goal of rendering ethnically mixed areas homogeneous, and thereby establishing a de facto claim on ethnic grounds to sovereignty over disputed territory. The term was principally, though not exclusively, applied to the actions of Bosnian-Serb paramilitaries backed by elements of the Yugoslav People’s Army. Subsequently, the term has been used to refer to other instances of minority persecution world-wide.
The Scout // June 30, 2009 at 1:54 PM
While I do agree that the water rates were pretty low, the magnitude of the raise is too much at one instance. What the government must look out for
1.) raise in rents
2.) Increase in shut-offs
3.)Possible Increase in diseases, especially at this time of type 1 H1N1 virus.
These are just a few of the problems that would arise. How are they going to deal with the management problems at BWA? these should be addressed before they raise water rates.
David // June 30, 2009 at 2:42 PM
There is a blog below about the BWA, BU will again post on the state of the water issue in Barbados later. It is that important an issue.
Adrian Hinds // June 30, 2009 at 3:18 PM
Thanks Lindsay. As expected some would give a definition that suits their argument. Your response gives context to it’s past and present use. We live in a world where many receive their daily bread as a result of successful social reconstruction. I must determine what exactly Shridath meant when entered it into the debate, and I will.
David // June 30, 2009 at 3:34 PM
@Adrian
In response to your earlier query Sir Sridath retired as Commonwealth Secretary General in 1990.
Bonny Peppa // June 30, 2009 at 3:36 PM
Adrian Hinds,
My definition of ‘ethnic cleansing’ is the massive influx of all dese GTBanna humbugs that have converged on my tiny 166 sq.mls like flies pun shit.
Hope this clarifies the term for you my Boo.
mash up & buy back // June 30, 2009 at 5:13 PM
Goodness me!
The guyanese on Starbroek news are now saying that in silver hill the immigration officers and police used ‘taregas’ – he means tear gas on them – and break open their door with a crowbar.
He is telling his other guyanese countrymen that he knows this ‘for a fact’.
Boy guyanese people too lie.
I regret the day we elected owen arthur and the BLP – for that is the day we destroyed this country with these low life guyanese who after earning money to improve themselves; to build houses and open businesses,they are now cussing bajans because the well drying up.
Listening to them you would get the impression that they gave and gave to barbados and got nothing in return.
Anonymous // June 30, 2009 at 5:39 PM
So they want to protest against Thompy when he goes to GT? Well, that’s their country, let them protest. Frankly that will only send up Thompy’s ratings further in my books. In fact, we should send them some more numbers so that they can have an even bigger protest!!
Barbados does not owe Guyanese a living! Simple as that.
David // June 30, 2009 at 6:33 PM
The following press release was received from the Guyana Institute for Democracy (CGID) today. Usually we would give the press release prominence but given our recent heavy focus on the immigration matter we have taken the decision to update with this blog. We note with interest the CGID has made no mention of Prime Minister David Thompson’s recent statement.
Carson C. Cadogan // June 30, 2009 at 6:56 PM
What about the huge sum of money Guyana owes Barbados from way back, will we ever be repaid?
Chuckles // June 30, 2009 at 7:48 PM
Quoting Mr. Rickford Burke
“Burke labeled the tactics of Barbados immigration authorities as draconian, and more aligned with “George Bush’s” approach to immigration” than Caribbean unity. He condemned the ongoing raids on suspected undocumented nationals as inhumane. “This must stop. These are families who seek a better life in a sister Caribbean state. They deserve to be treated with dignity,” Burke contended.’
Is Mr. Burke a madman? Is he saying that families seeking better life in a sister Caribbean state can work and live there illegally ad infinitum? I hope
David Thompson reads BU. Which Caribbean agreement are you in breach of , by the introduction of your new immigration policy? Ask the Jagdeo’s and Gonsalves to tell the people of Barbados, who are overwhemingly supporting you in what you are doing, about the breach.
Bush Tea // June 30, 2009 at 8:28 PM
Is Mr. Burke a madman?
….Probably not! ..Likely just another of the many Guyanese who ran away from their own country – in his case, to the USA – who suddenly found out how to criticize other countries.
Like Singh and the many others, they know what is wrong with the successful countries to which their fellow immigrants flee
….BUT VERY FEW OF THEM YET HAVE THE GUTS TO CRITICIZE THE RACIST AND IDIOTIC LEADERSHIP OF THEIR OWN FAILED COUNTRY.
Their bitterness and insults for Bajans only serve to reinforce Bush Tea’s position that these are people with a genuine, ingrained dislike for us – and who wish us ill.
All the more reason they should be cussing us from Georgetown (or New York) but not from St. Phillip.
I say let the raids continue. If they can show proof of ownership of assets they can take them along with them.
Those who are properly documented and who conform to our laws we will continue to welcome like family, but anyone who deliberately flouts our laws should be treated appropriately.
What Rickford Bork what??!
Anonymous // June 30, 2009 at 9:21 PM
Why does Barbados remain in CARICOM, the CCJ or the CSME? These institutions appear to be a net drain on our resources. Time for PM Thompson to throw down the gauntlet and forge a new regional arrangement which returns to the original ideas of functional cooperation and mutual assistance. Forget this quicksand of political and economic integration. Barbados for 400 years provided wealth to England, now independent we must not let others take what we have built up. Beware the Trinidad/Guyana mafia, it brings only misery and death!!
sylvan // June 30, 2009 at 9:24 PM
patriotic barbadians need to come and march to show solidarity with the government and support for the policy of managed migration. we must turn in a massive number and full up the streets of bridgetown in one big march. a saturday afternoon would be good. we will march to defend our country and government. barbados for bajans. if the guyanese hate that, tell them get out and go back to guyana and carry their nasty habits with them.
Wright B. Astard // June 30, 2009 at 10:25 PM
In the final analysis,I will deem the following enemies of the state of Barbados
1. Stabroeknews
2. The Nation news
3.Stabroeknews overseas based bloggers.
4 Ricky Sing
5 A small percentage of Guyanese living in Barbados.
The majority of Guyanese here in Barbados , whether legal or illegal are not the ones kicking up a fuss. So too are the majority of Guyanese in Guyana. The agitators and mischievous ones who are calling on God to strike Barbados with a hurricane and all that, and demonstrations against Prime Minister Thompson in Georgetown are those refugees who had absconded from Guyana never to return, living in the USA, Canada, the United Kingdom and right here in Barbados.Then there are those who live a privilege life outside of Guyana,but see it fit to drag down Barbados ,its people and its policy , just to be on the band wagon. In this sad state of affair , we must remember that there are many law abiding Guyanese living among us .
J // June 30, 2009 at 10:39 PM
Scout do you know what “host” means?
J // June 30, 2009 at 10:44 PM
For all those who asked Leviticus Chapter 19, verses 33 to 34 says “and if a stranger sojurn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him, but the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself, for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt”
We need the church(es) to guide us to the Christian response.
J // June 30, 2009 at 10:51 PM
If Immigration officers are “raiding” homes in the foreday morning, do they have search warrants issued by the courts?
And if no search warrants have been granted is it not unconstitutional to enter a person’s home without a warrant?
David your friend the PM is a lawyer (I am not) maybe you or he can answer this question for me and the rest of the BU “family”
J // June 30, 2009 at 10:58 PM
And this one for the church going Scout, from Leviticus chapter 19, verses 9 and 10 “and when ye reap the harvest of your land, thy shall not wholly reap the corners of thy field, neither shalt thou gather the gleaning of thy harvest, and thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather every grape of thy vineyard; thos shalt leave them for the poor and stranger, thus says the Lord thy God”
The Scout // July 1, 2009 at 12:57 AM
J
I thought you knew, I’m uneducated, after all, I’m bajan,how do you expect me to know what “host means?
You people do like taking the Bible passages out of context and use them to your fancies. However, I never lived or visited Egypt.
David // July 1, 2009 at 2:24 AM
@J
Do you think that our Fourth Estate should be bring this information you are asking us about? It’s time your profession steps up to the plate.
Anonymous // July 1, 2009 at 6:44 AM
David to J
Do you think that our fourth estate should bring this information…………
A mighty hit for six David.
Now kim young put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Wuhloss.
mash up & buy back // July 1, 2009 at 7:05 AM
Lindsay Holder
Have you seen your article re peter wickham’s analysis in today’s nation on line.
Is this the first article they have posted and did they delete any part of it?
Just checking.
lholder // July 1, 2009 at 8:24 AM
MUBB,
Yes, out of six articles that I have submitted to the Nation Newspaper, the one appearing today is the first that the Newspaper has published.
Yes, the Nation deleted two paragraphs. I will shortly submit the full text of the article to BU’s administrator so that it can be posted on the blog.
lholder // July 1, 2009 at 9:00 AM
MUBB,
Correction. The article appearing in today’s Nation Newspaper is a redacted version of the article, ‘Peter Wickham – Nonsense and More Nonsense’, posted on this Blog.
I have just submitted the article, ‘Due Process and Other Immigration Issues – Open Letter to Professor Compton Bourne’, for posting on the Blog. That article appears in today’s edition of the Barbados Advocate Newspaper.
livinginbarbados // July 1, 2009 at 9:14 AM
@LHolder
Rather than focus on whether the newspaper published your submission in totality–because we know that editing is part of the process for all media of high quality and there are genuine space constraints with print versions–do you feel that the editing materially affected your arguments?
And before any jumps up, no media has any obligation to any writer/contributor to take what is offered without editing, even in-house staff are under that rule.
David // July 1, 2009 at 9:25 AM
@Peter Wickham
Your silence is deafening! We know that you follow BU why not respond to Lindsay Holder’s challenge?
Wishing In Vain // July 1, 2009 at 9:49 AM
What makes Mr Holder’s comments even more worthy is that this gentleman is a loyal friend of Owing Arthur but he has chosen to write on the matter as a sensible loyal Barbadian, putting friendship aside which to me makes his comments even more biting and worthy.
There is much being made about nothing, if you live and work illegally you should expect to be asked to leave at some stage, simple and plain, it also appears to me that this story is given much fuel to run on by the likes of Ricky Singh and Roxanne Gibbs two transplants from Guyana to Barbados, my suggestion to both of you is if you two are unhappy with the Gov’t of Barbados’s policy re illegal Guyanese and other illegals you are free to relocate back from whence you came to your homeland, I am sure that they will be only too happy to receive you once again.
Wishing In Vain // July 1, 2009 at 9:51 AM
Professor Compton Bourne may be well advised in his position to avoid making comments of a political nature while in office and in a foreign land.
lholder // July 1, 2009 at 9:51 AM
LIB,
Your recent submission is rather strange.
We all know about the editorial policy of newspapers, but deleting material that alters the context within which statements have been made is not appropriate. In such circumstances, not publishing the article is a better policy that publishing it with redacted portions that alter the context of the article.
True, the Nation Newspaper has no obligations to publish any articles submitted by me or anyone else, with or without redacted portions. But let me ask you this question. “Did it not publish the drivel, sad stories, and inflammatory statements carried in editorials or other pages of the Stabroek News without any redactions?”
Lastly, it is the same Nation Newspaper that requested me to collapse my article, ‘Immigration Blues in CARICOM’, into two instalments of 750 words each. Would that article have had the desired impact if it hade been collapsed into the two instalments?
livinginbarbados // July 1, 2009 at 10:44 AM
@LHolder
No where that I know does a newspaper not exercise its right to edit, if it feels the need, and the reasons can be many. Hence my request to you to stress if the editing materially affected your argument.
A word limit is a reasonable control device and you know that for many professional journals/publications you would be subjected to that. You may be able to negotiate with a professional journal about what is taken or left. But, we also know that it is an accepted part of the discipline of writing. It is rare that such a process of negotation over length occurs with a newspaper (especially if they are trying to touch on matters of immediate import).
To the extent that any of your publications in the papers, if they have been edited before publication in a manner that you feel distorts or ignores the context or distorts your argue, would elicit a nasty rebuke to The Editor (which of course, he/she may or may not publish).
What The Nation has done in publishing material drawn from elsewhere is what it often does, reproduce existing news copy, but usually that is not very long.
I would like to think (but it totally hypothetical) that had your original pieces been shorter they would be have been published in full, in a series as has been the case with the Wickham and Jeff Cumberbatch pieces. I don’t know if you explored that option.
What you offered several weekends ago was a treatise, as far as most newspapers are concerned, and that you went at length into the exposition is to your credit. The Advocate split the presentation over 2 publications (not sure if that was with agreement by you). I read them in full and did not count the number of words, but many/several commented on this blog about their excessive length. They were certainly the longest pieces I have seen by an outside author in any of the local papers, but will defer to others with longer histories if that is not the case.
But, you have the blogs, such as BU, where, I presume, the moderator has not to impose any length restrictions. You could also have your own website and be master of your own publication destiny. You can also use it to indicate the rebukes you send to The Editors.
lholder // July 1, 2009 at 11:01 AM
LIB,
Thanks for the objective comments.
Best regards.
David // July 1, 2009 at 11:03 AM
@LIB
We see that you have become the defender of the status quo. It is ironic Peter Wickham was heard defending the editorial policy of the Nation newspaper the very same paper which blocked his column during the last election. All must be well in paradise now.
Here is the hard truth LIB. Given the current debate any submission by Lindsay Holder given the ensuing discussion post-Barbados Advocate publication of his exposition would probably have done wonders for its circulation which has been flat for sometime despite its marketshare. The additional incentive is the importance to the Nation’ s credibility given its readiness to give full page prominence to news regurgitated from the Guyana newspapers, Rickey Singh et al by exposing the views of a prominent Barbadian.
There is a lot more we can say about the tainted editorial policy of the Nation newspaper on the immigration/Guyanese matter specifically but it might compromise individuals undeserving of censure.
Chuckles // July 1, 2009 at 11:04 AM
I hope the critics of PM Thompson’s immigration policy including Mr. Wickham, would read and re-read
W I V’s latest posting quote ‘There is much being made about nothing, if you live and work illegally you should expect to be asked to leave at some stage, simple and plain’ .
Justin Robinson // July 1, 2009 at 11:07 AM
Great work Lindsay, whether one agrees with you or not you have certainly raised the level of debate on this issue. We need you back doing some teaching in our department.
My question is, given the sensitivity of the movement of people across borders, should nations make major changes in immigration policy as part of a single market for example, without reference to the public, in say the form of a referendum?
livinginbarbados // July 1, 2009 at 11:15 AM
@David
I do not know if being referred to as defender of the status quo is a compliment or a criticism. I do not flip-flop, so in trying to be consistent, I write things as I see them. Lindsay seems to understand my point as it goes to his writing, and really that is of most importance.
I am not defending the editorial policy of a particular paper, merely making a point that such policies cut many ways, often not to the liking of a contributor. I would like to think that in trying to uphold whatever standard they have they do it consistently. The Nation and The Advocate have cut my pieces (never changed my words) and I tell them that I do not care because I will publish in full on my blog. I had my oral remarks edited to fit a time slot and while it did not really affect my main thrust it left out key points. Again, I published in full on the Internet.
We are no longer in the era of a single or limited range of organs for our views. But, honestly, I find it odd that on the one hand you can say the equivalent of these papers are a bunch of no-counts, then place so much emphasis on what they do if you do not like the stance. You cannot have it both ways.
As I said about balance, both main papers are tainted, as are the VOB and CBC. Each has a set of biases, which is sometimes very clear, but othertimes a bit opaque, but still there.
Sargeant // July 1, 2009 at 11:17 AM
@livinginbarbados
but many/several commented on this blog about their excessive length.
************************************
Must have been another blog, there was only one complaint on the length on this blog. Perhaps David can confirm.
Anyway what’s the problem in exploring an important issue at length? It seemed to have grabbed everyone’s attention.
mash up & buy back // July 1, 2009 at 11:23 AM
Lindsay Holder
I mash up & buy back – applaud you.
You have been relentless in your defence of this blessed land – like any true patriotic son of the soil should.
Please don’t be misled by living in barbados that many on this blog commented on the length of your fist piece to the advocate – insinuating they felt it was too long.
That is the nature of the beast.
I recall only one blogger ‘J’ who made that comment,and others like adrian,david and myself supported your full post.
I detect your sincerity on this matter and a desire to bring the barbadian perspective which to my mind was brilliantly laid out.
If it were possible for the ill wishes of non nationals in this country to bring about our demise – then Barbados would now be keeping company with the likes of Haiti and Guyana.
livinginbarbados // July 1, 2009 at 11:24 AM
@David
On re-reading, I will take the ’status quo’ label as a criticism (though mild). I have always been referred to as an iconoclast for NOT towing the line. By I was raised to speak my mind. Have I mellowed with age? Is something in the water in Barbados must be responsible? Do I have a reason to love BWA after all?
livinginbarbados // July 1, 2009 at 11:25 AM
For the pedants out there, it can be towing or toeing the line…
mash up & buy back // July 1, 2009 at 11:27 AM
If you ever listen to Living in Barbados aka Dennis Jones on Down to Brasstacks – he uses a lot of words and ends up making no sense or saying anything of depth.
If you can,please ignore him.
David // July 1, 2009 at 11:33 AM
@LIB
While you contain your argument within the editorial policy of the respective media houses we prefer to believe though with great difficulty, the dynamic role a Fourth Estate MUST play as it interacts with the other realms of the estate. As a developing society about the navigate a path strewn with challenges the role of the Fourth Estate MUST align with the job at had.
livinginbarbados // July 1, 2009 at 11:38 AM
@MUBB/Sargeant
One tendency, and it’s interesting, is for some (not many) to feel that they need to speak for others. I wrote ‘many/several’ (and honestly did not count or care, but merely noted that length came up as an issue; yes some/several commented that length was not an issue for them–but it’s not set text so hopefully no marks will be deducted from those who did not read it all). I could say that I know many who did not read the articles in the newspapers because they were turned off by its length. I accept that was a casual observation made over the first two days of publication.
Length can be an issue for some and it is often cited as a negative feature. Several of my former bosses often swore that they would not read any thing I sent them if it was over one page in length.
I think Lindsay understands the point.
Anyway, as Justin says, thanks to Lindsay for being amongst those (not the only one) to have raised the level of the debate.
lholder // July 1, 2009 at 11:41 AM
Justin,
Thanks for your comments.
I will try and make myself available for teaching from the next academic year.
On the referendum issue, Jay on this blog also raised that question. I think that there is some merit to it.
There are many matters that must be addressed on the CSME and freedom of movement with accompanying work rights, but they have not got the attention that they deserve.
I sincerely believe that freedom of movement with accompanying work rights for ‘bona fide citizens’ of the islands known as the ‘Little Eight’ is feasible. The term ‘Little Eight’ was used after the break-up of the Federation.
There is a lot in common between those islands. I, however, do not beleive that such freedom of movement is feasible with either Guyana or Jamaica at this time. With all due regards to Jamaica, Bruce Golding is trying his best. Note that he has not commented on Barbados’ immgration policy. I look forward to the day when Jamaica gets back on its feet; it is a wonderful country.
With regard to Guyana, there is so much too be done that it seems impossible. At the current rate, if Guyana continues to export its problems, it will never develop given that it is an already under-populated country. If that occurs, there will be nothing to gain from integration with that country, and that is the harsh economic reality of the situation.
mash up & buy back // July 1, 2009 at 11:58 AM
I will let sargeant speak for himself,but I will say this for my self to you living in barbados.
Your explanation above is at best dishonest.
Your direct quote to lindsay holder was that:”I did not count your exact words,but many/several on THIS BLOG commented on its excessive length”.
This is the second time within a few days that I have noticed that living in barbados makes a negative comment or insuination about a fellow blogger,but when challenged and found to be guilty of false accusation – he never apologises but seeks to engage in fudging and spin.
In today’s example he now moves from ‘many on this blog commented on the length of lindsay’s article’,to ‘many of my friends who read the article in the newspaper felt it was too long’
If you can’t trust a man too be truthful in what he writes or say,I would think it is difficult to trust him in other things.
mash up & buy back // July 1, 2009 at 12:02 PM
David & BU Family
Prime minister thompson will be ding a live regional press conference in Guyana at 1:00 p.m. today.
It will be broadcast live throughout the region.
livinginbarbados // July 1, 2009 at 12:21 PM
@MUBB
I have no problem with being proved wrong on ‘many/several’ on this blog and will gladly withdraw the reference, even resubmit it and ask David to delete the original. It still does not detract from the point I wished to make and I think Lindsay understands (though I dare not take silence as being consent) the length of the piece detracted readers. That I know for a fact as far as my circle goes, hence my drawing on the well-worn path of ‘casual observation’. I can quantify them.
With due respect (and Lindsay please feel free to answer directly) I did not make an insinuation against him if “negative comment or insuination about a fellow blogger” was pointed in his direction. If he were not the blogger in question, please specify so that due apologies can be given.
With regard to my commentaries on the radio, they are often very short and not a lot of words (rarely as long as 5 minutes). I have no problems with the transcripts and recordings being used to prove that point.
Again, I am in your debt for being the arbiter of truth. If asked, would you identify yourself?
livinginbarbados // July 1, 2009 at 12:30 PM
@MUBB
Just so that it’s clear to those who may not read the full thread, I did not move from one point to another. I made two separate points: the one concerning the blog, I am prepared the concede; the other, concerning my friends, I will definitely hold.
The risk with commentary is that one gets misquoted and even in your submission your cite me twice but change the words in my citation, without remark. Should I start to wonder?
livinginbarbados // July 1, 2009 at 12:37 PM
@Justin Robinson/LHolder
“My question is, given the sensitivity of the movement of people across borders, should nations make major changes in immigration policy as part of a single market for example, without reference to the public, in say the form of a referendum?”
Referendums may be the way to go for the immigration policy issue, but you have to then accept that if you go that route the expectation may be for other ’sensitive’ issues to be dealt with similarly. Of course, there is no reason to have the referendum once, and EU countries and the state of California (as an US example) have used the method several times to see public approval/disapproval on a single issue.
I do not know the Barbados Constitution well, so am unsure of what its provisions are for a referendum, and how any results would/could be binding on a government.
lholder // July 1, 2009 at 12:38 PM
LIB,
I am not really caught up with the debate about length of articles and the editorial policy of the newspapers on that issue. My main point is that the newspapers, if they are to be seen as impartial, must strive for balance with regard to the letters they publish and to the material they reproduce from other newspapers. If it is apparent that such a policy is being adhered to, then there would be less opportunity for criticising the newspapers.
livinginbarbados // July 1, 2009 at 12:47 PM
@David
“While you contain your argument within the editorial policy of the respective media houses we prefer to believe though with great difficulty, the dynamic role a Fourth Estate MUST play as it interacts with the other realms of the estate. As a developing society about the navigate a path strewn with challenges the role of the Fourth Estate MUST align with the job at had.”
It’s hard to argue without putting a limit of some parameters. When we don’t others say we have strayed off topic. But, I do not see ‘editorial policy’ as narrow, but governing all that is done by a media house.
But, I really do not understand the point you are making in the final sentence.
livinginbarbados // July 1, 2009 at 12:53 PM
@LHolder
Nor am I caught up on the matter of length. If it makes others happy, I can say that the length of your submission is your business; that does not address the matter that the publisher may want to cut it down.
But I am also not of the view that the local media are striving to be seen as impartial. Admittedly, my experience here is short, but I see little to hold onto regarding a search for impartiality.
livinginbarbados // July 1, 2009 at 12:59 PM
@LHolder
What we don’t know about the papers is what they do in totality: we see published letters, but not those in the trash bin.
As I have tried to say also, we no longer need be hostage to the editorial policy of a given paper, because things like the Internet mean that self-publishing at least, or publication elsewhere is a real and often more effective option.
Adrian Hinds // July 1, 2009 at 1:02 PM
Lindsay please do not get bogged down in this back n’ forth banter with LIB. You will get nowhere very fast.
Will someone please take notes of the PM comments and report back please!
livinginbarbados // July 1, 2009 at 1:05 PM
@Adrian Hinds
Why on earth do you feel you need to advise Lindsay? Give the man the respect to be able to think for himself.
Adrian Hinds // July 1, 2009 at 1:17 PM
Is the PM on the radio? So far I can’t find a radio station carrying his press conference.
ha ha ha um is real funny to receive advise against advising someone else. I gine live by the example that i would wish others to follow. I gine tek muh own advise.
livinginbarbados // July 1, 2009 at 1:19 PM
@Adrian Hinds
VOB is carrying the broadcast…
Sargeant // July 1, 2009 at 1:49 PM
@Livinginbarbados
Parsing!Parsing!Parsing!
Lindsay Holder was asked if he submitted any articles to the newspapers and if they were edited. He responded that yes he submitted articles and an edited copy appeared in the Nation. Who tell he to say dat? You immediately launched into a defense of the newspaper and its editorial practice. You even said that many on this blog found his previous article too long (since redacted) and that among your circle of friends it was thought to be too long. What kind of friends do you have? I mean they can’t be so shallow that they can’t spend at most 20 minutes to read the article.
Yuh mean yuh got enough time to read and respond to the “posts” from PDC and now you say that the article was too long.
In the local parlance “Wheel and come again”.
Sargeant // July 1, 2009 at 2:05 PM
Can someone explain “The spirit of Caricom”? Or should I ask David Ellis?
Anonymous // July 1, 2009 at 2:20 PM
Thompson has done Barbados proud having this press conference. He is truly the truthful and realistic leader with a clear vision. Gonsalves and Jhagddeo can go and finger themselves.
Anonymous // July 1, 2009 at 2:25 PM
My boy is basically telling them “calm yourselves”, “cease and settle”, “get your facts straight”. Guyanese journalists rightfully humbling themselves after all the frothing! Haha!
livinginbarbados // July 1, 2009 at 2:26 PM
@Sargeant
“What kind of friends do you have? I mean they can’t be so shallow that they can’t spend at most 20 minutes to read the article.” [Very intelligent ones, many of whom spend the day reading long documents for a living and books for pleasure. I will ask some of them why they chose not to read Lindsay's article. I could presume that the subject was not of interest. That would be justification enough. Perhaps they are unlike me and do not want to delve into this issue. Who knows? Is their not reading the articles a new sin?]
Yuh mean yuh got enough time to read and respond to the “posts” from PDC and now you say that the article was too long. [I read my own comments again concerning Lindsay's articles, "I read them in full and did not count the number of words..." I did not say that I found the article too long. Hold the belief you wish to, despite the evidence to the contrary.]
Truth be told, I have no idea how many people have read what Lindsay wrote, and do not try to guage that. What I know is that some people have and sought fit to comment on it on this and other blogs. Counting the new commentators might even lead me to believe that not many people have read the pieces.
Adrian Hinds // July 1, 2009 at 2:27 PM
Sargeant // July 1, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Can someone explain “The spirit of Caricom”? Or should I ask David Ellis?
————————————————–
wait David Ellis does see “Spirits”?
The spirit of Caricom is whatever it’s backers and other regionalist say it is.
I hope to read the speech at some point later .
Adrian Hinds // July 1, 2009 at 2:31 PM
Sargeant // July 1, 2009 at 1:49 pm
@Livinginbarbados
Parsing!Parsing!Parsing!
———————————————-
difficult as it may be, you must resist the temptation, otherwise you too will be “spinning” in a circle? ha ha ha ha ha lol! tek muh advise. God knows I love to give it.
Adrian Hinds // July 1, 2009 at 2:34 PM
@Sargeant
Have you seen any additional responses to Lindsay’s first article aside from George Brathwaite’s hurried attempt?
Anonymous // July 1, 2009 at 2:35 PM
I feel like my heart will burst in my chest “They’re not going to import it (ethnic conflict) into Barbados. Let them do it where they;re accustomed doing it. Not in Barbados”. Yuh ratings gone up in my book Thompson. Tell it!! We fought to hard for this country to dash it away just like that. God bless u PM!!
livinginbarbados // July 1, 2009 at 2:36 PM
@Sargeant
I let MUBB decide if the little porkie pie (aka bit of dishonesty) warrants an apology. I for my part do not need one, but if MUBB so determines, I will note that as ‘money in the bank’ in the new world of PDC.
Sargeant // July 1, 2009 at 2:37 PM
AH
During the news conference David Ellis asked a question based on “some people said the Immigration policy contravenes “the spirit of Caricom”.
I suppose the spirit of Caricom means different things to different people i.e. to Jagdeo and Gonsalves et al it means open borders in Barbados
livinginbarbados // July 1, 2009 at 2:46 PM
@AH
If Sargeant just sticks to the text and not state something that wasn’t stated (lost count of the straw men now) then he wont spin out control.
Time to focus on Canada Day.
Themis // July 1, 2009 at 2:51 PM
What David meant was the spirit of the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas which is, arguably, expressed in Aticle 45…freedom of movement for CARICOM nationals in the single economic space.
Sargeant // July 1, 2009 at 2:56 PM
AH
No I haven’t seen any other responses, however if there are some out there I’m sure that they will be brought to BU’s attention.
Adrian Hinds // July 1, 2009 at 2:58 PM
Anonymous // July 1, 2009 at 2:35 pm
I feel like my heart will burst in my chest “They’re not going to import it (ethnic conflict) into Barbados. Let them do it where they;re accustomed doing it. Not in Barbados”. Yuh ratings gone up in my book Thompson. Tell it!! WE FOUGHT TO HARD FOR THIS COUNTRY TO DASH IT AWAY JUST LIKE THAT. God bless u PM!!
Anon your Bolded comments brought back memories of a former Bajan Prime Minister, who echoed similar sentiments. Only difference his was self-serving (BLP ) and yours although self-serving is much broader in scope (all BAJANS)
WE HAVE BROUGHT THIS NATION TO FAR, TO FAR, TO NOW TURN IT OVER TO A MAN…….. owen arthur
Given their (BLP) support of illegal immigration, and of allowing the unflux of immigrants we must now deal with, THE WE in Owen Arthurs statement, takes on a even bigger meaning.
Patriotic Bajan // July 1, 2009 at 3:02 PM
Prime Minister David Thompson had those Journalists in Guyana in his hands.
He totally mesmerized those Guyanese journalists and diffused a lot of that hostility.
Well done.
Adrian Hinds // July 1, 2009 at 3:02 PM
Themis // July 1, 2009 at 2:51 pm
What David meant was the spirit of the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas which is, arguably, expressed in Aticle 45…freedom of movement for CARICOM nationals in the single economic space.
————————————————–
Don’t focus only on the spirit, whatever it is now defined to be. The letter of the document must mean something if not it is useless. Uh mean how do we know that “what David means” is the shared definition of this “sprit” by others? So tell us what the document actually says.
lholder // July 1, 2009 at 3:06 PM
Hello Folks,
Following is Article 45 as it appears exactly in the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas.
Article 45: Movement of Community Nationals – “Member States commit themselves to the goal of free movement of their nationals within the Community.”
Themis // July 1, 2009 at 3:07 PM
I suggest you read Article 45 for yourself , AH
The Scout // July 1, 2009 at 3:08 PM
I think the Barbados P.M has put this matter to rest. Some questions from guyanese journalists were so poor that it shows they had the wind knocked out of their sails. Some of their questions were very amateurish. One thing that boyhers me though is when this free movement of CSME citizens starts, what will be the position of a Barbados government , given that if there is a change in parties at some point if the flood gates would open permenently this time.
David // July 1, 2009 at 3:16 PM
@Adrian
A member of the BU household recorded the press conference. It is currently being checked for quality, will update later.
Prime Minister Thompson did well to communicate the Bridgetown position. Some responses had to be shrouded in diplomatic speak but that’s understandable. Let us see how the academics respond.
Sargeant // July 1, 2009 at 3:23 PM
@Livinginbarbados
Ok it wasn’t you who found the article too long but it seems to me that was implicit in your criticism. However turnabout is fair play, I’ll take your word re your friends and withdraw “shallow” I should have said that “they can’t be that uninterested in Barbadian affairs”.
You’re right, time to focus on Canada Day, some friends just dropped in. Time to fire up the BBQ
David // July 1, 2009 at 3:24 PM
Surprise we have not had comment reacting to the news clip carried by VOB of former Prime Minister Kenneth Anthony and his reference to Caricom leaders procrastination over the years to deal with the hard issues. He seemed quite in agreement with Thompson. His position raises the point of Opposition Parties and government reaching consensus on key issues failing which any regional movement will lack continuity. He was quite clear in saying Thompson’s view on managed migration for Barbados was know before the DLP won government.
livinginbarbados // July 1, 2009 at 3:31 PM
@Sargeant
Response taken in the spirit they it was offered. Case closed for me.
For my friends, I assure you they are not shallow, and are very interested in Barbadian affairs (some of the Bajan ones have been/are deeply and passionately involved in many and varied aspects of this country’s affairs/development; some of the non-Caribbean ones likewise, but over different time frames and from several different locations over time; some of the Caribbean ones have given a lot of themselves over decades to help build Barbados). They have individuals and free thinking would be all I would dare say.
Enjoy your BBQ.
Adrian Hinds // July 1, 2009 at 3:33 PM
lholder // July 1, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Hello Folks,
Following is Article 45 as it appears exactly in the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas.
Article 45: Movement of Community Nationals – “Member States commit themselves to the goal of free movement of their nationals within the Community.”
==========================
Thanks Lindsay:
I had suspected there wasn’t much in the letter of the document for the regionalist to use in this debate, therefore the “spirit” must be made to be whole, and real.
I would say at this time that the “spirit” of the revise treaty is alive and well in Barbados, and that it is manifested in thousands of persons. This is why it must be manage, and made legal not only on the ground in country but in the letter of the treaty also. There are out of status because neither our laws or the treaty ligitimize their presence in Barbados. We are after all still a Nation of laws. Uh mean Owen and Mia say so.
bridger825 // July 1, 2009 at 4:05 PM
Bridger825
And the same good book has this to say of strangers
Deuteronomy Chap 14 Verse 21
“Ye shall not eat of anything that dieth itself,thou shall give it unto a stranger that is in thy gates that they may eat it or thou may sell it to an alien”
This is a far cry from treating a stranger as one of your own.
bridger825 // July 1, 2009 at 4:15 PM
Did you hear Mr Lester Bird on immigration within Caricom on the CMC news last night? A turn around from some of the statements he had been making in recent times. Poilticians ,like rubber dingies know how to ride the waves.
Equity // July 1, 2009 at 4:36 PM
Bridger, I can’t see that you are ill-treating a stranger if you give or sell them something to eat that your religion forbids you from eating!
Adrian Hinds // July 1, 2009 at 4:52 PM
bridger825 // July 1, 2009 at 4:15 pm
like rubber dingies know how to ride the waves.
David Commissiong, and academics too.
@equity:
Maybe we can say that religion is ill-treating the stranger? Uh mean a person commits murder and then enter an insanity plea.
Negroman // July 1, 2009 at 5:01 PM
I am please that the Prime Minister restated his position on the whole immigration issue.I think he did a fairly decent job.I suspect however that he is in a conciliatory mood and he is being force to relax some of the stringent conditions attached to the amnesty proposal.I have a gut feeling that the pressure is beginning to tell.In that regard we must remind our Prime Minister that he has the support of a vast majority of Barbadians and any retreating on his part will result in a tremendous response from us that he will not appreciate.
The Prime Minister wants to be decent & fair.I understand and I can support your view that you will rather prefer illegal non-nationals to remove themselves from Barbados voluntary than to be forcibly remove by the means of deportation.The implications of a deportation order are far reaching as explained by the Prime Minister,and it is moral on the part of the Prime Minister that he wishes deportation to be last resort of Barbados when requesting individuals to leave Barbados.However,it must be noted that some of those non-nationals are determine to re-enter Barbados by any means necessarily and strong arm tactics are needed to seriously address the situation.
The Caribbean has piss poor journalists who I believe are lazy or indifferent to their jobs and who do not take enough time to do proper research and plan effectively for their tasks.
Many of the questions posed were very elementary and not the probing type of questions I thought I would have expected to be asked.The Guyanese journalists were pathetic and David Ellis was lousy as usual.Davis Ellis’s line of questioning was poor and I think he embarrassed VOB & Barbados.Michelle Arthur from CBC was reasonably.
The press conference in my opinion was a bit disappointing,nevertheless I believe Prime Minister David Thompson got his message across and he firmly stated Barbados position on the immigration issue.
David // July 1, 2009 at 5:52 PM
BU Sidebar has been updated with the audio of Prime Minister David Thompson’s press conference in Guyana at the start of the Caricom Heads of Conference.
mash up & buy back // July 1, 2009 at 5:58 PM
I was very disappointed in the press conference for reasons I will not elaborate at this stage.
David ellis was such a jackass.
Imagine asking that question which was pushing the ralph gonsalves and ricky singh view.
What spirit of chagaramous treaty.
Steupse!
I am not going to say anything more right now.
Wishing In Vain // July 1, 2009 at 6:00 PM
Great work David,
I agree with Negroman the quality of the questions posed by the journalists was very, very POOR, right down to the idiot who suggested that a plane load were sent back to Guyana what a load of utter rubbish and nonsense.
What was posed as supposely probing questions were made to look super silly.
mash up & buy back // July 1, 2009 at 6:05 PM
Lindsay Holder
Can you tell me what thompson was referring to when he talked about the automatic 6 month visa.
mash up & buy back // July 1, 2009 at 6:07 PM
I am not liking this watered down approach and defensive approach thompson took.
Anonymous // July 1, 2009 at 7:03 PM
The shite continues on VOB.
You mean even today after their sister company the Nation newspaper has been printing salacious rumours and lies in the newspaper against bajans,you mean Bajans even to this day are not allowed to speak freely on this guyana issue on VOB’s call in programmes.
A woman just called the programme and started to say why she believe guyanese should blame themselves about what is happening ;and she was cut off.
A man called very irate with that foolish question that dvid ellis asked as a bajan journalist,and they were butting in so much during the man’s contribution that you could barely get the gist of his point.
Mike brown again shutting up bajans from freely giving their views on this immigration issue.
I believe persons of influence in this society who will cause VOB to sit up and listen, must start to publicly take on VOB with how they are prohibiting the free expression of barbadians.
Enough of this crap man!
lholder // July 1, 2009 at 7:33 PM
MUBB,
The various heads of government of CARICOM countries agreed sometime in 2007, I think, that CARICOM nationals travelling in the region should be automatically granted up to six- month stays in the countries they visit. My understanding is that Guyana has implemented that agreement. I would assume that if that procedure is adhered to, e.g., in Barbados, then it would completely remove the need for individuals who are not on work permits to seek extensions so that they can stay longer.
Note that for several Caribbean individuals who visit the U.S.A., immigration authorities there would routinely grant them three months to stay in the country. Also note that in the U.S.A., there are no provisions for short-stay visitors to seek extensions to the initial length of stay granted to them.
mash up & buy back // July 1, 2009 at 7:52 PM
Lindsay Holder
Please help me here.
Why would david thompson even point this out at a time when he is trying to stem the inflow of persons into this country?
Secondly why did he even sign on to this when it seems that most other caricom partners have not?
Would this not negate what he is trying to do with this ’so-called managed migration?
Will that automatic 6 months mean that any and everyone – whether skilled and unskilled can come in and park themselves here and say they are looking for work.
I REAL,REAL VEX – AND GETTING MORE VEX BY THE MOMENT.
Hell man,what kind of **#&%** sucking up going on here!
David // July 1, 2009 at 8:05 PM
mash up and buy back read all about it, Jay would have touched on this before.
Chuckles // July 1, 2009 at 8:49 PM
I wonder how David Ellis and Roxanne Gibbs , two negroes, felt when one of the journalists, presumably Indian, asked Thompson about a bias against people of a certain ethnicity. It was like dangling a red rag in front of a bull. Thompson gored her. lol. I can understand Gibbs , a Guyanese, continuing the misleading articles but it is time David Ellis gives up the fight.
Anonjam // July 1, 2009 at 8:58 PM
Sargeant // July 1, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Can someone explain “The spirit of Caricom”? Or should I ask David Ellis?
———–
Just to add more to the explanation what is meant by the term “Spirit of Caricom”. To get a better understanding of the term one should also read Article 46 which states, inter alia:
Member States have agreed, and undertake as a first step towards achieving the goal set out in Article 45, to accord to the following categories of Community nationals the right to seek employment in their jurisdictions:
(a) University graduates;
(b) media workers;
(c) sportspersons;
(d) artistes; and
(e) musicians,
recognised as such by the competent authorities of the receiving Member States.
So in other words, the free movement of skilled nationals was just supposed to be a first step towards the free movement of all CARICOM citizens. The next step was to allow for domestic workers and artisans. Eventually it was intended that all CARICOM nationals would be able to move freely throughout the Caribbean. Actually the free movement of all CARICOM nationals was supposed to be implemented at the end of this year.
It seems that Barbados is rethinking the goal outlined in Article 45. So in a way it could be argued that the policy is not within the spirit of CSME as it was originally envisioned.
I actually expect David Thompson to express some reservations at this summit about the timeline for free movement of nationals. He indicated as much in the comments that appeared in the newspaper yesterday.
Adrian Hinds // July 1, 2009 at 9:36 PM
Anonjam I have just listen to the PM. What is this “In a way” thing you mentioned. It makes no sense when it is compared to what the PM said.
Barbados is in full compliance with it’s CSME oblications, articles 32,34,36,37,45, 46 of the treaty. We have implimented the 5 catogories and further 4 agreed to in 2007.
Here the PM as it seems you didn’t or couldn’t
The area that has created the most heat but the lease light, is the freedom of movement. This is a fundamental issue, one on which much confusion, and misunderstanding persist. In the circumstances it is important for all of us to understand what the treaty of chagaramous ACTUALY SAYS, and what it means. To be precise, the revise treaty of chagaramous, article 45, provides that member states commit themselves to the goal of free movement. This is therefore an aspiration which the framers implicitly acknowledge would have to be reached through a phased approach, not instantaneously. Article 46 states as they agreed that as a first step to allow 5 categories of skill community nationals to seek employment in their jurisdiction, and those five categories, Uni graduates, media workers, sports persons, artist, and musicians. The article also envisages, the possibility of enlarging as appropriate the categories of persons entitle to move and work freely in the community. And in fact in July 2006, the heads of government agreed to permit trained teachers, and registered nurses, to move under the skilled nationals regime. In July 2007 Heads of government agreed that holders of associate degrees and equivalents as well as artisan possessing Caribbean vocational qualifications will also joined the program. NINE CATAGORIES are therefore now enforced, five enshrined in the revise treaty and four agreed by heads at the 26th and 27th meetings to the conference. BARBADOS IS HONOURING ITS OBLICATION IN ALL NINE CATOGORIES
Anonjam // July 1, 2009 at 9:43 PM
I just listened to the press conference. I thought David Thompson was quite good. You have to give jack his jacket, he did well with the questions posed.
Jay // July 1, 2009 at 9:56 PM
After listening to the Prime Minister I’m actually a bit concerned.I agree with the dedicated Caricom national work permit program because it was actually part my idea,lol.
However,I must strongly disagree with the Prime Minister on the 6 month stay for Caricom nationals.That part of CSME was never implemented into law by the BLP but now that it is as of June 1st,this could pose a significant problem for immigration officers in trying to reduce the illegal immigration numbers.
I am also concerned about this Tribunal that the Prime Minister is talking about since Barbados already sorta has one.It looks almost now like the Prime Minister would be extending Illegal Caricom nationals access to the courts so removals might not be as easy as before.
I am glad however he fully understands the issue as it relates to importing the racial hatred that dwells in Guyana.
It appears that as it relates to policy Caricom nationals,illegal or not,will have expanded rights & access to Barbados !
Anonjam // July 1, 2009 at 9:58 PM
Adrian don’t get me wrong, I am not saying that Barbados hasn’t honoured its obligations. I am merely saying that this:
If it was envisioned that all CARICOM nationals would be able to work and travel freely within CARICOM by the end of 2009, it is not totally unfounded to argue that implementing an immigration policy that is seeming intended to oust a certain group of CARICOM nationals from Barbados is inconsistent with the goal outlined in article 45.
I don’t think that David Thompson is against regional integration but his rhetoric does suggest that the administration is questioning the initial vision of CSME (or at least certain aspects of it). If free movement of all nationals will negatively affect Barbados then maybe it should be re-considered.
Adrian Hinds // July 1, 2009 at 9:59 PM
Let us now look at the catagory that has cause the greatest public commentary. Unskilled community national. As I have said earlier the revise treaty of chagaramous does not as a matter of law provide for the unrestricted movement community nationals it is describes as a goal for our region. The heads have targeted 2008 as the time frame for moving to full freedom of movement and subsequently the timetable was revise to 2009. In the current economic downturn, It is highly unlikely, that this indicative time frame can still be met. So to be clear unrestricted freedom of movement is not in place in the caribbean community and Barbados is not in breach in any of it’s treaty obligations in removing those persons whose presence in our country is sanction neither by our immigration laws nor by any of the provisions within caricom to which we have agreed.
If I may gloat a little as it demonstrates my understanding of our laws and obligation, I would have said the following today before listening to the PM’s speech.
Adrian Hinds // July 1, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Thanks Lindsay:
I had suspected there wasn’t much in the letter of the document for the regionalist to use in this debate, therefore the “spirit” must be made to be whole, and real.
I would say at this time that the “spirit” of the revise treaty is alive and well in Barbados, and that it is manifested in thousands of persons. This is why it must be manage, and made legal not only on the ground in country but in the letter of the treaty also. There are out of status because neither our laws or the treaty ligitimize their presence in Barbados. We are after all still a Nation of laws. Uh mean Owen and Mia say so.
—————————————
I gine start the ball rolling now as it takes others a very long time to catch on. Under whose watch did this massive breaking of our Immigration Laws occurred? Who?
Adrian Hinds // July 1, 2009 at 10:20 PM
ha ha ha ha Anon I am not getting you wrong. I have gotten you very right, but you are quite wrong. You have attempted more than a “mere” saying.
I don’t quite know which word discribes the first (2008)and second dates (2009) for full movement. You said “ENVISIONED” the PM said “TARGET”. I would assume at this point that given the significant numbers of Anti-Thompson regional commentators that not being called on this as yet may suggest that he is right and you are not, and would require you to bare the burden of proving your case.
You further said:
it is not totally unfounded to argue that implementing an immigration policy that is seeming intended to oust a certain group of CARICOM nationals from Barbados is inconsistent with the goal outlined in article 45.
———————————————–
I don’t know if it is unfounded to so do or not. However I think it is silly to argue about an a multi-point “Immigration policy” without defining the said points and the deliberate sequence these point must follow. If you did that you would find that an Amnesty is the first part the new policy, but if you did that you would not have been able to suggest that it “seems to intend” ousting a certain group of people. You would have been force like have been to admit that it affords special treatment to a group of people not afforded to all. The spirit is simply that, a record of an ongoing intent, that should at some point become the LETTER of an agreement. Such ambiguity should never have been allowed into the treaty.
Jay // July 1, 2009 at 10:32 PM
I was listening to the more important parts yet again & I get the distinct impression that Caricom nationals will have more rights as it pertains to removal.
Current Barbados immigration laws dictate that only Citizens & Permanent residents have access to the courts & why they should keep their status if a crime is committed,but I get the impression that this privilege will now be an access point for Caricom nationals as well thus slowing their deportation process significantly.
The 6 month visa for Caricom nationals that Mr. Thompson is talking about is something that was already enshrined in the ‘Devised’ Treaty of Chaguaramas BUT the BLP Government did not implement that neither did the Antiguan or St. Kitts Government at the time of implementation.All one needs now is to show a Caricom passport in order to be able to stay for said time.
The Immigration Department was also mentioned to become revamped but what that entails isn’t known at this time,one thing is for sure though the Immigration policy will be released publicly sometime this month.
Adrian Hinds // July 1, 2009 at 10:33 PM
I have stated from the very begining I have no problems with West Indians who are interested in a shared common goals of integration. I like others got family uh nuff all across the insland chain. But I will not open my arms to people who deceitfully claim caribbean oneness while secretly practising “apanjaat” Love of self dictates that I cannot be so nice.
Jay: I want some more details on this auto 6 month visa. I would assume that such will be at the discression of the interviewing Immigration officer, who will be guided by a set of guidelines including but not limited to letter of invitation, job offer, place of stay, proof of financial sustanance for duration of stay etc.
Jay // July 1, 2009 at 11:25 PM
@Adrian Hinds,
I have no idea at this particular point how Mr. Thompson has implemented the 6 month stay portion of CSME,but one thing is clear he mentioned it would be available at the airport to Caricom nationals.I don’t really think one can be given an interview knowing the long lines at GAIA but I’m guessing that proof of financial support might have to suffice.
I guess it could work both ways though in that if someone cannot prove they have the financial means they can be returned to their country more easily since amongst the statistics he mentioned there was an increase in people being turned away at GAIA.
Hopefully the revamp at the Immigration Department still focuses mainly on expanding the Enforcement division significantly or Barbados could have more problems with these Caricom expanded rights,nothing is cheap nowadays.
Anonjam // July 2, 2009 at 12:06 AM
Adrian, you are of the view that I am wrong about something and David Thompson is right. I am not certain that I disagreed with David Thompson in relation to anything he said so I am not sure I understood your point.
But let me try to clarify my points, my views and my observations:
(1) I don’t think there is anyone who disputes that the original intention was for all CARICOM nationals to move freely within CARICOM. The implementation was supposed to be in phases and by the end of this year there was supposed to be free movement of all CARICOM nationals. If the initial intention of CSME were to come into being, all the illegal Guyanese in Barbados would be able to legally seek work in Barbados.
See the following link for more:
http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20070216/carib/carib1.html
(2) I suspect that the David Thompson Administration is of the view that the large number of Guyanese immigrants in Barbados is a strain on Barbados’ resources and to remedy the “problem” he has implemented the current policy. I also suspect that the large number of Guyanese illegal immigrant has caused this administration to reconsider the goal of full free movement of all CARICOM nationals.
The reason I suggested earlier that this policy “seemingly targets” Guyanese nationals is because there seems to be a disproportionately large number of illegal Guyanese immigrants in Barbados compared to any other group. If all the Guyanese illegal immigrants were to leave Barbados tomorrow, I believe the immigration issue would cease to be so high on the administration’s agenda. That being said, I am not suggesting that he has anything against Guyanese themselves, I just think that they happened to be the nationality most interested in residing in Barbados and are therefore targeted by this policy. If Lucians or Antigans were here illegally in such numbers, I believe his policy would have remained the same.
(3) Lastly, I must admit that I am not extremely passionate either way about the immigration issue. I am interested in hearing both sides of the debate and if full free movement is indeed harmful to the Barbadian economy or society then I do believe we should reconsider Article 45.
The only real concern that I am passionate about is what I see as a growing hostility, anger and belligerence towards Guyanese (whether legal or illegal). Many of the anti-Guyanese comments don’t differentiate between legal or illegal. Indo Guyanese are assumed racist unless proven otherwise. Guyana is referred to as a backward ass country. Anyone who expresses concern about the way the immigration policy will be implemented is called unpatriotic or diabolical or some other negative adjective. If anyone expresses any sympathy towards Guyanese they can expect a negative response from some commentators.
So those are my comments on this issue. I know that many will not share these views and I expect that some may even take issue with my observation of an anti-Guyanese sentiment that I have observed in Barbados. But hey, it is just my observation.
The Scout // July 2, 2009 at 12:13 AM
Bajans, we have to wake up to what is happening. Somehow, I think we are not being told everything, the P.M’s hands seems tied. My accessment of the whole matter is that bajans need to let the P.M know how we stand on the whole matter. At the end of the day our birthright will be taken from our offspring. I shutter ti think what Barbados will be in another 15 to 20 years, all the hardwork put in by our ancestors will be taken from our offspring and this would happen because we, the present generation sit back and allow these insular people rob us. I am convinced that the average bajan has gone soft. Rise up bajans and defend your land, show your patriotism. I hope no-one comes to claim anything that belong to me. The more this matter evolves the more I’m beginnung to HATE guyanese.
David // July 2, 2009 at 1:19 AM
Two points resonated from the interview:
1. The fact some Caricom countries are cherry picking how they want to participate in the Caricom institutions. Barbados according to PM Thompson is meeting its obligations under the treaty. 2. In response to Barbados targeting a particular ethnic group he made it clear that behaviours of racial and political tension will NOT be tolerated in Barbados. Implicit in how he answered the question suggests there is a concern on this front.
The Scout // July 2, 2009 at 6:42 AM
David
I’m glad you are recognising this point. Negroman and I were tell the BU family for a while that when these indo-guyanese get here in their numbers,they are going to start the same racial foolishness that is their culture and we were told we are over-reacting. What is happening now? The longer we take to unite in a definitive position on this matter, the harder it will take to rectify the problem. This is only the beginning, these indo-guyanese will soon challenging our very administration and those in authority once you’re black as they do in Guyana.
David // July 2, 2009 at 6:51 AM
The bottomline and this is why a referendum would be nice is as long as we remain committed to Caricom and CSME Barbadians must give up a piece of our Bajaness.
Dark Knight // July 2, 2009 at 11:30 AM
Thompson just does not get it! He keeps missing the point.
No one is saying that barbados does not have the soverign right to determine its Immigration Policy, what they are saying, is a loud: “No” to the “inhumane treatment of undocumented CARICOM nationals who are being rounded up and deported, while their possessions; money clothing and everthing else of value – is stolen by DLP members and supported.”
Now we know why! Thompson said in Guyana:
“Barbados is not in breach of any of its Treaty obligations – in removing those persons, whose presence in our country is sanctioned neither by our immigration laws nor by any of the provisions within CARICOM, to which we have agreed.”
In short, they are Guyanese “illegally,” and as such, illegal presence cannot claim layful ownership – hence justification for DLP members and supported to call the immigration and once immigrants are ambushed by the Immigration office – the dems can move in and steal their stuff.
This “Inhumane David Thompson deportation policy” is turning out to be extremely lucrative for DLP members and supporters, since it forms part of “Thompson’s fatted calf doctrine.”
Themis // July 2, 2009 at 11:40 AM
This debate is swiftly turning into one where people are shouting their point of view to others who are shouting back their points of view and they are speaking of two different matters. No one disputes Barbados’ right to “manage” immigration, that point is a given. Now, how do we treat deportees? Are all the stories of inhumane treatment fictitious? Thompson seems to be quite clear on this as well, and his opinion differs from most on this blog who are claiming to support him 10000% or some equally ridiculous figure. Read the front page of today’s Nation.
Dark Knight // July 2, 2009 at 1:04 PM
This “Inhumane David Thompson deportation policy” is turning out to be extremely lucrative for DLP members and supporters, since it forms part of “Thompson’s fatted calf doctrine.”
Patriotic Bajan // July 2, 2009 at 5:15 PM
The Prime Minister had to explain to a Guyanese journalist the difference between being deported and being asked to leave. That could explain how the Guyanese government count 53 and the Prime Minister said 4 persons were deported since the raids started. The other 49 were asked to leave and placed on a flight to Guyana.
The Guyana immigration count the 49 as deported. They could show the Barbadian press that is there now their passports that were stamped deported.
They are just trying to make Barbados look bad at every turn. The Prime Minister still has not convinced them about his policies because they are still complaining.
Let the immigration stand firm and continue the raids.
The CDB head, Ricky Singh and any other Guyanese can cry as much as their like. The laws of this country must be respected.
mash up & buy back // July 2, 2009 at 6:39 PM
Patriotic Bajan
You ain’t even hear the best,even jagdeo could not tell the difference whenasked, between being asked to leave and deported.
The President of Guyana ,mind you.
I wonder if Jagdeo went to school.That man sounded so pathetic in that david ellis interview.
The man cannot even form a sentence then.
Elombe2 // July 2, 2009 at 7:16 PM
But is there a difference as Thompson is saying? The Immigration Act speaks to a deportation order being made, but whether one is deported or only removed, he cannot return to Barbados without the consent of the Minister….see section 21 (10) of the Immigration Act, Cap 190 of the Laws of Barbados.
Ruel Daniels // July 2, 2009 at 8:40 PM
The following is a copy of my comments on Stabroeknews under the article Barbados open to structured re-admission of overstays (quoting the Prime Minister of Barbados)
###########################
Ruel Daniels 98.88.127.8 not found says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
July 2, 2009 at 8:34 pm
Leave the damn Bajans alone. They built their nation into one in which they could be proud while Guyana is being run into the ground by a bunch of corrupt politicians. Some Guyanese continue to vote for this regime, and then want to go and enjoy the environment Bajans struggled and sweated for.
The Bajans have seen what is happening in three distinct countries, namely Guyana, Trinidad and Tobago, and Fiji. The fact that the circumstances in all three of them are almost the same is enough evidence for any sensible group of people to do what is necessary to avoid their nation becoming a replica of any of those three.
Barbados, Antigua and other Caribbean islands have no moral obligation to support refugees from Guyana while lottery and CLICO money is being stolen right left and center. The Government of this Country should hang its head in shame, to be criticizing a nation with a positive developmental history while it goes around the world with hat in hand begging for alms, and converting whatever it receives to its own partisan political use and benefit.
Jay // July 2, 2009 at 8:45 PM
The current laws as it pertains to Barbados immigration law dictates that if someone has overstayed their time & are removed[basically pay for their own ticket home] they cannot return to Barbados for 1 year.If a person however not only overstays their time but also have to be removed at Government’s expense they are basically banned for life from Barbados until the Minister in Charge of Immigration says otherwise.
lholder // July 2, 2009 at 9:43 PM
Hello Fellow Bloggers,
Did any of you listen to the 7.00pm CBC news tonight?
In an interview with members of the press today, President Jagdeo of Guyana accused Barbados of lying and of using ‘gestapo-like’ tactics in its repatriation of illegal Guyanese immigrants.
I think that it is time that Prime Minister David Thompson put on his boxing gloves.
mash up & buy back // July 2, 2009 at 10:03 PM
Lindsay Holder
I concur entirely.
We need a Ton Adams like persona to deal with this uncouth phillistine.
Really he is saying his lying,criminal lot gave their story and the barbados prime minister gave his and therefore what thompson is saying is a lie.
What the shite more thompson need to hear?
The Scout // July 2, 2009 at 10:44 PM
Unfortuately, I didn’t hear the evening news, however, if what you are saying is true, then my remarks earlier should be accepted. Remove ALL guyanese immigratants from Barbados even if it means pulling out of Caricom because this is heading in the same direction as the federation and we must not be stuck with a growing indo-guyanese culture of arrogants.
The Scout // July 2, 2009 at 10:45 PM
I wonder if my P.M realise that he has the destiny of our offspring in his hands?
lholder // July 2, 2009 at 10:56 PM
Hello Folks,
The immigration fracture between Barbados and Guyana seems to be no longer a spat; it seems to be assuming dimensions of an all-out war.
The President of Guyana is making much ado about nothing over the numbers; his focus should on whether those Guyanese repatriated were illegal or not.
Then, he has the gall to publicly accuse the Government of Barbados of ‘gestapo-like’ tactics. Clearly, for me at least, the behaviour of Jagdeo has done nothing to further the cause of Guyanese. Rather, it will contribute to resentment on the part of most Barbadians, and make it more difficult for most of us to embrace Guyanese and treat them as one.
Jay // July 2, 2009 at 11:23 PM
@The Scout
I think what is at stake is much greater than that.2 Countries are desperately asking 1 leader to solve all of its problems,but only 1 leader actually truly belongs to one country.
I think the Immigration raids should be expanded dramatically until the illegal immigration mess has come under control.Barbados should not offer ANY soft treatment as prescribed by some leaders.I think the progress at the Caricom level maybe able to progress where we can have a ‘managed migration’ process at the Caricom level since it doesn’t seem like Barbados can easily withdraw from Treaty of Chaguaramas.
Most of Caricom seems to be getting the point & getting Barbados’ position.Not once have I seen one leader suggest Barbados withdraw from CSME or Caricom which should say something……we could still win this !
Jay // July 2, 2009 at 11:30 PM
@ Mr. Holder
What are your thoughts of Mr. Kissoon’s appeal to our Prime Minister ? Do you think that maybe this is what Guyana’s nationals are really saying to Barbados every time they leave Guyana & come to Barbados’ shores even though they may not admit it ?
http://www.kaieteurnewsonline.com/2009/07/02/an-appeal-to-barbadian-prime-minister-thompson/
————————————
“An appeal to Barbadian Prime Minister, Thompson
July 2, 2009 | By osafo | Filed Under Features / Columnists, Freddie Kissoon
I am absolutely sure that though the Barbadian Prime Minister, David Thompson, is new to the power establishment in the CARICOM region, he has more than a superficial knowledge of the nature of politics in Guyana over the past years in which he would have been a politician in Barbados.
One only has to look at Mr. Thompson’s counter-part in Jamaica. There you see a CARICOM Prime Minister that knows what the politics of Guyana is like. During the controversy stirred up by President Jagdeo over the signing of the EPA, Prime Minister Bruce Golding castigated a certain CARICOM country for consistently begging the international community.
Mr. Golding was devastating in his description. He told his audience that this sister CARICOM state goes around the world portraying itself as dirt poor and pressing countries to be generous. He referred to this country as a panhandler. He went on to assert that such behaviour was an embarrassment to CARICOM. He ended his perception by saying that he, Golding, is fed up with the particular CARICOM nation’s international begging.
In case the CARICOM Heads do not know, this columnist on this page wrote that it was Guyana that Mr. Golding had in mind although he didn’t name the country. President Jagdeo at a press conference called me a fool when it was pointed out to him that I had fingered Guyana as the territory that Mr. Golding had in his thoughts
If Mr. Golding is embarrassed by Guyana’s international mendicancy then the Jamaican Prime Minister should ask himself how he thinks we, Guyanese feel. Every road, school, hospital, bridge, water equipment, sewage pipe, every national programme, be it alcohol awareness, tobacco awareness, HIV campaign, has some kind of international money going into it as a result of a request from the Guyana Government.
A majority of people in this country would like to see the nation’s government fund our own development.
Back to Mr. Thompson. So surely, Prime Minister Thompson must have a working knowledge of Guyanese politics. Is there an idea inside the head of Mr. Thompson that makes him reflect on why there is a not so small group of illegal immigrants from Guyana in his island, a number which no doubt is larger than other undocumented communities from the rest of CARICOM. There must be.
As I write, there is no published evidence as to the numbers of unregistered entries of nationalities from Guyana and the West Indian island in Barbados. My thinking is that the Guyanese constitute the largest group from what I have been told by people whose analyses I have confidence in.
Mr. Thompson, as the Prime Minister of Barbados, must have asked himself during the recent days as his stand on the return of these undocumented residents gets expanding coverage in the media in his country and Guyana, why after seventeen years of the return of electoral democracy to large, resource-rich Guyana, are its people fleeing in large numbers to the small, overpopulated island of Barbados.
I believe Mr. Thompson ought to know that it has to do with leadership failure in Guyana.
I come now to a direct appeal to Mr. Thompson. In 1997, CARICOM brokered a peace concord with the Guyana Government and the Opposition. It is named the Herdmanston Accord. Guyana was drowning in violence in the aftermath of the 1997 elections when this vital covenant was signed that saved the country. The Herdmanston Accord sees constitutional arrangement as a pathway for an enduring solution to Guyana’s troubled politics.
Dr. Rupert Roopnarine, one of our finest minds, said eleven days ago that the architects of the Herdmanston Accord arrived at the judgement that Guyana’s intemperate ethnic divisions constitute the core problem of the country and the overhauling of the 1980 authoritarian Constitution could provide the basis for a sustained peace.
Dr. Roopnarine has faulted CARICOM for not doing an audit of the Herdmanston Accord.
I am appealing to you, Prime Minister Thompson, to have a discussion with your CARICOM colleagues, including the Guyanese President to examine the status of the Herdmanston Accord. The lack of implementation of the principal requirements of this peace deal is directly related to the overflow of undocumented Guyanese in your country. I don’t know how much you know of the history of Guyana the past 30 years but in that timeframe, right up to this moment, nothing has changed.
You must know Dr. Yesu Persaud, one of the Caribbean greats. He said last week that Guyana’s politics has prevented Guyanese from returning home. It is time CARICOM insist on the acceptance and inclusion of the Herdmanston Accord in the body politic of Guyana. It can save this country from impending disaster.”
—————————————-
Although,most Guyanese may not want to admit the immigration enfocement actions of Barbados have brought this problem to the limelight.Whether the Prime Minister will actually do it,I don’t know but I think it might explain the root cause of this immigration issue !
J // July 3, 2009 at 12:35 AM
On July 1st at 6:44 an David wrote and Anonymous responded as follows:
“It is time your profession steps up to the plate…A mighty hit for six David…
Now kim young put that in your pipe and smoke it.”
J writes “More like a duck.
I am not Kim Young.
I don’t even know Kim Young.”
J // July 3, 2009 at 12:37 AM
I don’t even like lawyers.
I like the philosophy quoted in Shakespeare “first thing we’ll do, let’s kill ALL the lawyers”
I like that.
lholder // July 3, 2009 at 12:49 AM
Jay,
The statements in the article are correct.
There are two main problems that plague Guyana. The first is that the country has been unable to put its resources to good use, and that is due to the general lack of vision and to mis-management of the economy. The second problem is the ethnic tension; the lack of meaningful cooperation between the two main ethnic groups has been occurring for a long time, and has contributed significantly to the malaise and desperation that permeates the entire society.
Unless the issue of ethnic tension is addressed, and unless the government adopts a visionary approach, Guyana will continue to be a parasite within CARICOM.
Jagdeo is caught between a rock and a hard place. I am sure he understands the issues in his country as well as the problems posed by illegal Guyanese immigrants for Barbados and other CARICOM countries. Note that at times he comes over as being sympathetic to the position faced by Barbados and other CARCOM countries with regard to the problem of illegal immigration; at other times he behaves like a pit bull in his efforts to placate the Guyanese people.
J // July 3, 2009 at 12:53 AM
Quoting Wishing in vain
” Wishing In Vain // July 1, 2009 at 9:51 am
Professor Compton Bourne may be well advised in his position to avoid making comments of a political nature while in office and in a foreign land.”
Dear Wishing in Vain:
Are you mad?
You want to silence Compton Bourne because he disagrees with you and with David and with Lindsay Holder?
What next?
Who else do you wish to silence?
You ever heard about freedom of speech?
You ever heard about vigorous intellectual discourse?
You ever heard to quote Kamau Brathwaite about calling a spade a fucking spade?
Compton Bourne is well within his constitutional rights to disagree with you, with David and with Lindsay Holder (and with me also)
And yes the Barbados Constitution protects me and David and Lindsay and Compton and you Wishing in Vain (although perhaps it shouldn’t) and any stranger, or wayfarer or sojourner, passer-by, or tourist or illegal immigrant.
One of these illegal immigrants will find a lawyer with balls (or maybe better still a lawyer without balls) and will sue the Barbados government for violating the Constitution, the court will find against the government and/or its agents and we the taxpayers will pay.
Mark my word.
J // July 3, 2009 at 12:58 AM
Dear Lindsay on July 1st at 951 a.m you wrote “Would that article have had the desired impact if it hade been collapsed into the two installments?”
I bet that collapsing the articles into 2 x 750 words each would have got them published in the Nation and truly brought you views to public attention.
Because to tell the truth how may people you really think read this blog (or even the Advocate)
Stupseeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
J // July 3, 2009 at 1:03 AM
Living in Barbados wrote “They were certainly the longest pieces I have seen by an outside author in any of the local papers, but will defer to others with longer histories if that is not the case.”
Yup.
I have been reading all local papers for more than 50 years and Lindsay’s pieces were certainly the longest that I can recall.
lholder // July 3, 2009 at 1:06 AM
J,
Who are you?
Be a real man or woman, and identify yourself. I doubt if the Barbados Constitution can protect phantom writers.
Sargeant // July 3, 2009 at 1:12 AM
Thompson held a 90 minute press conference in which he rejects the accusations that Barbados is ill treating illegal Guyanese immigrants. Next day the Guyanese PM and his host at a Caribbean leaders meeting calls him a liar.
Over to you Thompson, the ball is in your court.
J // July 3, 2009 at 1:16 AM
Dear David on July 1st at 11:03 a.m. in reference to Lindsay Holder you wrote “by exposing the views of a prominent Barbadian.”
Lindsay Holder may be a good economist, he may even be a damn good economist, he may even be the best economist in Barbados or the world (I can’t judge because I know neither Lindsay nor economics well enough to say) but Lindsay is no expert on migration.
On migration matters Lindsay is just an ordinary layman, like me, or you, or the other bloggers.
My late mother God bless her soul always used to tell me never to take medical advice from a lawyer (regardless of how eminent) and never to take legal advice from a doctor (regardless of his eminence).
On immigration Lindsay is just a layman, so as the young people would say, “don’t let us get tie up”
Sargeant // July 3, 2009 at 1:29 AM
@J
Are you back with that drivel that the article was too long. It was too long for you because the author’s opinion did not mesh with yours, that’s the long and short of the whole issue. And who are you to say what the Nation would or would not publish, are you an insider?
David // July 3, 2009 at 1:57 AM
The incoherent mumblings of Jagdeo last evening begs the question to what degree is Jagdeo prepared to stay political on the matter of immigration. Here is is we have a relatively new Prime Minister trying his best to open the door for a solution to this matter and Jagdeo to the surprise we are sure of Thompson feels no remorse to toss around words like gestapo. All of his accusations are based on allegations and the one he used of himself receiving hassle while travelling to Barbados as a Foreign Minister borders on a bare face lie. His explanation is he would not show his diplomatic passport because he did not always want to use the VIP lounge. Hello, because he used the diplomatic passport does not mean he HAD to use the VIP lounge!
As Chairman of Caricom and the leader of a country which is responsible for flooding the countries of several Caribbean islands one would have thought he would have adopted a conciliatory tone. In his defense he said somebody must be telling lies about the figures. Prime Minister Thompson has obviously been forced into a position to respond. It is most unfortunate how this matter is playing out.
J // July 3, 2009 at 2:10 AM
On July 3, 2009 at 1:06 am lholder erote ”
“J,Who are you?”
Why does it matter?
But I will greet you next time I see you, and maybe identify myself (if I feel like it :-)
And yes the Constitution protects persons, nothing in there about names, and nothing in there about whether I have to have balls or not.
And “no” I am not Kim Young. I don’t even know Kim Young, nor Ezra Alleyne either.
J // July 3, 2009 at 2:16 AM
No Sargeant I am not a Nation insider. But I have been reading the Nation from its first edition, and the Advocate for more than 50 years, so yes in half a century I’ve noticed a thing or two, including that the Nation likes their articles short and lively.
Lindsay’s articles are unfortunately neither.
But he is a nice enough guy.
livinginbarbados // July 3, 2009 at 4:57 AM
For those who want to think about whether Barbados’ policy towards illegal immigrants is well structured, balanced, likely to work/fail, etc., it’s useful to look at what the US is doing (remembering that the US has extensive borders that are very hard to control), see NY Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/03/us/03immig.html?_r=1&hp. Questions on the article can be addressed to its author.
I must say that I have great skepticism that the PM’s stated policy is really one that can work if it focuses (or appears to focus) merely on the supply (immigrants) and not also on the demand (employers, landlords, etc.).
For those who really have the capacity to think about it, the pull factors (eg, Barbados’ relative economic success, relative social stability) and push factors (relatively poor economic performance in neighbouring/regional states, divisive social/political situations in such states) are not likely to change markedly in the foreseeable future.
My focus today is on the Wimbledon men’s semi-finals, where players from 4 nations that have had a range of problems over centuries with immigration (legal and illegal), will tussle: Switzerland, UK, Germany, and USA. I suspect that the results will not tell us whether the countries’ immigration policies have facilitated the emergence of great sporting talent or helped bolster them economically or socially.
Have a wonderful weekend, and those in the USA, the Independence Day holidays are always a good time to think about the origins of the nation where you now live.
lholder // July 3, 2009 at 6:41 AM
J,
You are right, I am not an expert in migration issues. Note, also, that there is no broad academic field of study known as ‘Migration’. Almost all university courses in that field are taught in faculties such as social sciences or law.
Although I am not an expert, my academic training in Economics and Politics gives me, I think, a better appreciation for the issues being discussed.
livinginbarbados // July 3, 2009 at 7:44 AM
@LHolder
“Although I am not an expert, my academic training in Economics and Politics gives me, I think, a better appreciation for the issues being discussed.”
I too have academic training in economics, politics, and urban planning; I also have working experience over 3 decades in economics. I have been a migrant almost all my life, including now. I have lived most of my life as a racial minority, and have also lived as a religious minority too, though when I was part of a racial majority. So, I, too, feel all of that gives me an even better appreciation of the issues being discussed.
That said, my views/experiences are not necessarily those that will or should carry the day. But, I do hope to offer a wealth of insights into the issues.
Patriotic Bajan // July 3, 2009 at 9:18 AM
J
Is it not hypocritical of Professor Compton Bourne and Ricky Singh not to comment on the Herdmanston Accord?
There are intellectuals of Guyana who moved out and are enjoying a high standard of living but refuse to get involved in serious discussion to help solve Guyana’s problems.
It is their right to freedom of speech in Barbados. How about their right of freedom of speech in Guyana. They do not speak negatively of their homeland Guyana.
I must tell you that most of those comments against Barbados immigration policy make me like Fidel Castro more. He would put them in jail for some frivolous reason.
From what Jagdeo said last night make me now hate Indo Guyanese more.
Can you imagine a President of a country that is 500 time bigger than another complaining about 49 persons who got sent back to that big rich country. The man is behaving like a full goat with the rope.
Adrian Hinds // July 3, 2009 at 9:31 AM
Sargeant “it” learns from hear say. May be if it’s mother is still around she could read Lindsay article and Tell J about it. chuspe
Adrian Hinds // July 3, 2009 at 9:36 AM
Man LIB post your comments to Lowdown last article. Did I interpret you correctly, as saying to Hoad, “As a BLACKMAN you did not like his (Hoad is White in the Bajan context) defence of the Status quo”? Wuh yuh saying exactly man? ha ha ha ha lol!
You did feeling blue or black when you wrote those words? ha ha ha
Adrian Hinds // July 3, 2009 at 9:46 AM
J // July 3, 2009 at 2:10 am
And yes the Constitution protects persons, nothing in there about names, and nothing in there about whether I have to have balls or not.
————————————————-
The consitution is just a piece of paper. It is hope that all citizens have a vested interest in it’s provisions and in so doing makes it a part of who we are. When people stop believing in it, as can happen when non-productive individuals such as Academics and lecturers, in particular those at UWI start a campaign to re-interpret and redefine it’s words to fit a cause, it can become just another disrespected institution as your law is not my law takes root. Ask Mia she knows it well although she does nothing when her agents are the main ones seeking to remove all percieved roadblocks to the liberal progressive march.
J // July 3, 2009 at 9:58 AM
Dear Patriotic Bajan, although I feel that you are neither patriotic nor Bajan, you wrote “those comments against Barbados immigration policy make me like Fidel Castro more. He would put them in jail for some frivolous reason.”
Thank God that you have no power.
And thank God that Barbados has a Constitution.
And thank God we have courts that seek to do justice.
And that God that we have some good decent Parliamentarians still.
Themis // July 3, 2009 at 10:19 AM
Adrian, what do you mean the Constitution is just a piece of paper? Can you imagine what would happen if a government agreed with that? Or the Police? You evoke memories of George Bush…in more ways than one!
Patriotic Bajan // July 3, 2009 at 1:23 PM
J
Trust me I am a 100% bajan and patriotic enough to stand up for the good name of Barbados unlike you. I also have liking for some of the policies of Fidel Castro.
What is your position on the Herdmanston Accord?
Why has Professor Compton Bourne and Ricky Singh not commented on the Herdmanston Accord in the same public way they want to castigate Barbados.
Remember that the Herdsman Accord was agreed on to solve some of the problems that confront Guyana. They are influential Guyanese and their views could help Guyana.
As you are supporting them maybe you should get hold of them and seek out their views.
Adrian Hinds // July 3, 2009 at 1:40 PM
Themis // July 3, 2009 at 10:19 am
Adrian, what do you mean the Constitution is just a piece of paper? Can you imagine what would happen if a government agreed with that? Or the Police? You evoke memories of George Bush…in more ways than one!
===========================
Of course you know what I mean. Not only government, but its agents, and symphatisers as well. The constitution starts its life as a document of words. We interpret those with define meanings and practices to boot and place BOTH in our hearts, and DISPLAY them in our actions. In an attempt to justify a cause or position the intellectuals have started to play with the words of the document hoping that our understanding will change to allow passage of their cause. When you do this you run the risk of eroding the esteem the document holds in our hearts and our actions, at this point its state of birth (mere words) becomes all that it is.
Themis // July 3, 2009 at 1:58 PM
Adrian, I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. Can you at least give me one example of “playing with the words of the document to justify a cause..”?
Jay // July 3, 2009 at 2:42 PM
To me a Constitution is nothing but a set of ideals set at the time of its construction & usually the country in its present form look towards those ideals for future guidance.However,no one can deny the fact that what may have worked back then,may not work now.
A good example of this is that the Queen is still considered our absolute head of Government with a significant amount of power even though it has never been exercised during our ‘post-independence’.
This is one of the reasons why I can actually relate to the US since it was a Barbadian who printed the US constitution & the Queen is not the head of Government.Obama just sweetens the deal,lol.
Sargeant // July 3, 2009 at 3:20 PM
There is no one like an educated fool. They like to impress people with their wide knowledge on a particular subject and pontificate from their patrician pulpits to us plebes. And so it is with one Jeff Cumberbatch who is a lecturer in law at the Cave Hill Campus of the UWI. According to Mr. Cumberbatch illegal immigrants are subject to the same constitutional protection as Barbadian citizens and legal residents of Barbados.
Mr. Cumberbatch’s logic goes like this: The Barbados Constitution allows that if you arrive in Barbados and tell the immigration officer you are here for two weeks to visit your aunt and the Immigration officer notes in your passport that you are allowed to stay for two weeks; then two years later you come to the attention of the Immigration Dept. who holds you for deportation you can tell the Immigration officers “not so fast, let me collect my property before I leave”. The Immigration Dept. is then supposed to give you enough time to put you affairs in order before you depart.
According to Mr. Cumberbatch the Barbados Constitution allows you to profit from an illegal act. Since Mr. Cumberbatch is so confident in his position perhaps he should offer his services pro bono to any illegal immigrant who decides to challenge the law.
http://www.nationnews.com/news/local/LEAD-Immigration-FRONT-PAGE-OTHER
Equity // July 3, 2009 at 3:29 PM
Can you prove Mr Cumberbatch wrong in what he is saying, Sargeant or are you just whistling in the dark? And Jay, which Barbadian wrote the US Constitution?
Anonjam // July 3, 2009 at 3:46 PM
Sargeant.
Mr. Cumberbatch is actually correct.
Maybe you should be arguing that the constitution should be amended rather than argue that he is incorrect.
FED-DOWN-WRONG-PATH // July 3, 2009 at 3:56 PM
Its is time for Bajans to boycott the Nation Newspaper as well. (In the same way I did the Advocate). They are playing politics with the news and has been firing this issue in the most unpatriotic way. The fact is is that the newspaper and opposition are doing a great disservice to the nation and its honour. BAJANS BOYCOTT ..The NATION NEWSPAPERS >>>>NOW!!!!! They will feel it in a week time they need your $1, your $2.00 and and your $2.50 more than you realised. You will be surprised to learn what percentage of they total intake subs and daily charges accout for. DO IT NOT
Look are the paper today look at the front page look and the pages inside, Imagine the only first lady the country has had since 1996 has passed on and not even a pictural tribute has been render today. How can youth or any one be encouraged to have any respect for our institutions.
Adrian Hinds // July 3, 2009 at 9:04 PM
Anonjam // July 3, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Sargeant.
Mr. Cumberbatch is actually correct.
Maybe you should be arguing that the constitution should be amended rather than argue that he is incorrect.
————————————————
How so anonjam? how so is Jeff C correct? He say the the government cannot deprive them of their property. He did not tell us how the government is willfully and intentionaly depriving illegal immgrant of property.
Themis // July 3, 2009 at 9:08 PM
I don’t understand Cumberbatch to be accusing the Government of anything. He is just saying what the law is!
Anonjam // July 3, 2009 at 9:31 PM
AH says:
How so anonjam? how so is Jeff C correct? He say the the government cannot deprive them of their property.
———————
His assessment of the law is correct. That illegal immigrants enjoy protection under the constitution.
Shiv // July 3, 2009 at 10:17 PM
Jagdeo and Gonzalves goals are to destroy Barbados or at least seriously tarnish its world image.
Sargeant // July 3, 2009 at 11:08 PM
@Anonjam
Mr. Cumberbatch is actually correct
************************************
I am not a lawyer neither am I a Constitutional expert, but I think I am endowed with some basic common sense. The Barbados constitution was written for the protection of Barbadian citizens and legal residents of Barbados. Without reading the Constitutions of the other Caribbean Commonwealth countries I’ll bet that the sections pertaining to individual rights would be virtually identical to the Barbados Constitution and probably identical to all Commonwealth countries.
Anonjam // July 3, 2009 at 11:40 PM
I am not questioning your common sense but you said it yourself, you are not a lawyer.
I am telling you that the constitution protects all persons, not only citizens of Barbados.
Think of it. Do you think that the Government can arrest and detain a tourist without charge and then claim that the constitution doesn’t protect persons who are not citizens.
Look, Jeff Cumberbatch is very bright guy. He has been teaching Law for 30 years. I am just saying that perhaps you should not be seeking to argue that he is incorrect legally. If you genuinely think that the constitution should only protect the rights of bajans then you should argue for its amendment.
Adrian Hinds // July 4, 2009 at 12:47 AM
Anonjam; this is not a sterile debate about the words citizen vs. person. This is not about whether an illegal immigrant is a person and therefore meets the requirement of the constitution as it outlines rights against state deprivation of property. This about the context to which Jeff Cumberbatch sought to place the lawfull actions of the state to remove persons from it’s jurisdiction who have not sought and secure some legitimate form of immigrant and or citizen status. It is in this context that Jeff Cumberbatch seeks to hold the state to ransom by suggesting that by lawfully removing a person who has no lawfull status, it is willfully, and deliberately depriving that person of their property. He then leaves it at that, as if to suggest his job is finish.
The Scout // July 4, 2009 at 1:39 AM
I spoke to a Q.C tonight on the matter and he told me Mr. Cumberbatch is misleading the public. Funny thing is he knows that he is misleading the public but the law is so designed that an attorney can always find an argument for almost every case.
Anonjam // July 4, 2009 at 1:48 AM
Adrian,
You seem to be absoultely certain that there is no truth to some of the accusations made. That is fine.
But I dont think Jeff is making any assertion of fact. He is stating the law. That is, if raids have taken place in the way that have been described, then they are not lawful.
Anonymous // July 4, 2009 at 5:20 AM
My take on the situation for what it is worth.
Everyone has rights.
However, if a man has committed an illegal act and is being arrested by the police; could he then say my citizen’s rights are being violated? No he could not. His rights would only be violated if in the execution of his duties the policeman exceeds what he is legally permitted to do cognizant with the context and circumstances of the arrest… or the arrest was wrongful or unlawful.
The overiding principle here is if the Authorities – Police and Immigration – have exceeded their legally permitted duties or used “unreasonable force” or coercion in the execution of those duties…nothing else stands.
It would be for those illegal immigrants to prove by “evidence” that the Authorities acted unlawfully.
Yardbroom // July 4, 2009 at 5:21 AM
The Above Comment Is Yardbroom’s.
Chuckles // July 4, 2009 at 9:35 AM
Jagdeo had me cracking up with laughter with his response to PM Thompson. It took me back to boy days when we carried out night raids on fruit trees in the district. If we were caught, we suffered the consequences
(a stick lash from the landowner) without complaining. Can you imagine we complaining to our parents who in turn should have argued that we only stole one mango and were undeserving of such cruel treatment? lol. Jagdeo, Cumberbatch et al should throw away their law books and to quote the youngsters ‘get fuh real ‘
Sargeant // July 4, 2009 at 10:18 AM
@Anonjam
Look, Jeff Cumberbatch is very bright guy. He has been teaching Law for 30 years.
************************************
It’s good that you admire Cumberbatch for his intellect, but “bright” people screw up too. I haven’t seen any article in the Nation that challenges the Professor’s view, perhaps we are so in awe of “bright” people that no one is willing to state “The emperor has no clothes”
Themis // July 4, 2009 at 11:32 AM
Why does The Scout not get his QC to enter into the debate and say how Cumberbatch is misleading the public?
Yardbroom // July 4, 2009 at 11:36 AM
I have no reason to believe Mr. Cumberbatch does not know the Law or is not bright…I dare say perhaps he is very bright.
However, on many issues a different interpretation of the Law can be had from many attorneys…in some cases very eminent ones.
Until such time as the actions of the Authorities are challenged in a court of Law and a judgement given by a judge; Mr Cumberbatch’s interpretation of the Law is just that…”his” interpretation of the Law.
Anonjam // July 4, 2009 at 11:39 AM
Yard broom you are correct when you say that if the police do not exceed what they are legally permitted to do then it can not be said that constitutional rights have been violated. That goes without saying because any act by the police can only be lawful if it is consistent with the constitution.
What a police is legally permitted do is dictated by statute (which must be consistent with the constitution). I don’t want to get into too much law on the blog but suffice it to say a police can not arbitrarily force their way into anyone’s home without a warrant and arrest someone (I am not saying that is what happened but the accusations are being made).
If you have a chance, take a look at Section 13 of the Immigration Act. It is the relevant section that addresses non-nationals who stay longer than the period permitted by an immigration officer. It covers a variety of things but one of the important things that it states is that the minister may make a deportation order against a person who overstays his/her permitted time in the country. A person against whom a deportation order is made may be detained and arrested without warrant.
What is interesting is that it does not make it a criminal offence to overstay the time permitted by an immigration officer. Before you jump out of your seat and shout at the screen, let me explain what I mean by this. Other than offences which are common law offences (like murder) an act is only a criminal offence when a statute stipulates it to be. So the statute would say something like “Any person who does “A” shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable to a fine or “X” years in prison”. Section 13 does not make it a criminal offence to overstay one’s permitted time (which I admit is odd considering that it is an offence to knowingly harbour such a person).
That being said, a raid of a person’s premises could not be lawfully executed unless
(a) a deportation order was issued;
(b) an arrest warrant was issued
(c) The police had reasonable cause to believe that a person was in the act of committing an arrestable offence;
Now the Prime Minister indicated that only a handful of Guyanese were actually deported. The others were asked to leave. If those Guyanese who were merely “asked to leave” were not the subjects of deportation orders or being charged criminal offences the police did not have the power to raid their homes and detain them.
Even the immigration official mentioned in the article stated:
“I am not sure about all these raids I’m hearing about because the order given by Government when the amnesty was announced, was that no raids are to be carried out while the amnesty is still in motion; so if any raids have taken place, it has nothing to do with the immigrant situation,”
The immigration official also stated:
“In order for anyone to be deported, a deportation document must be signed by the minister in charge of immigration, so it is a case where people can’t be just put on a plane and sent home; there are procedures that must be followed.”
It may be that the raids only related to non-nationals against whom deportation orders were issued. Or maybe the persons who were raided were actually being arrested for other criminal offences. I really don’t know all the circumstance behind the alleged raids, I am just saying that Mr. Cumberbatch is just trying to outline the law. No need to question his legal knowledge because the law isn’t what you want it to be.
Themis // July 4, 2009 at 11:41 AM
I do not want to seem to be overly defensive of Cumberbatch, but how come no one has publicly stated that his opinion is wrong? And what will the Prime Minister discipline immigration and police officers for, as he says he would?
Anonjam // July 4, 2009 at 11:45 AM
sorry, Sargeant and yardbroom. I posted without seeing your last comments where you indicated that you werent questioning his knowledge of the law. Disregard the last sentence of my last post.
Anonjam // July 4, 2009 at 11:47 AM
Themis, Judging from your sign in name I would have thought you were a lawyer yourself.
Themis // July 4, 2009 at 11:52 AM
Maybe I am, and the fact that you recognise it says that you know about what you speak too!
mash up & buy back // July 4, 2009 at 11:56 AM
Anonjam
Are you a jamaican (ie anonjam – anonymous jamaican)
Are you also a lawyer practicing here in barbados?
If yes,can you tell me if the legal situation re immigration raids and ‘constitutional rights’ are similar in Jamaica?
Anonjam // July 4, 2009 at 12:21 PM
@Mash Up
I am a Bajan. Whilst I havent reviewed the Jamaican Laws. I would think that they are similar.
@ Themis
I was actually wondering for a while if you would chip in with a legal point or two. But if you are a lawyer, I apologise if I revealed something that you didn’t want revealed.
Chuckles // July 4, 2009 at 12:58 PM
@Adrian Hinds
In order to protect the illegal immigrant’s property, Gov’t could tag it and store it at Glendairy Prison until the offender could make arrangements to have it shipped to Guyana. My grandson at 6 years old would laugh to hear that Jagdeo and Cumberbatch making the property a big issue.
Themis // July 4, 2009 at 1:48 PM
What you you tell your grandson if, after he had finished laughing, he were to discover that his favourite toy had been stolen? Would he start laughing again?
Yardbroom // July 4, 2009 at 2:27 PM
Hi Anonjam, I accept and will disregard your last sentence, I would never do such a thing.
—————————
I take on board the salient points you have made. There are certainly a few issues which need further clarification; but this can only come from “hard evidence” which is subjected to challenge in court.
I could go into what the Law Lord, Lord Denning said about what is “reasonable” as this issue cries out for it, but I will let it rest.
On what I have read the defence would have his/her work cut out to prove the Authorities acted unlawfully.
Chuckles // July 4, 2009 at 3:23 PM
@Themis
He would cry till he gets a Busta. lol
Jay // July 4, 2009 at 5:37 PM
Now that we have some legal speak going on,I was wondering could Guyana actually challenge Barbados’ immigration policy in CCJ through the matter highlighted by Professor Cumberbatch ?
It is also of interest that P.M. Thompson has re-dedicated Barbados to free-movement,but I wonder if the situation has changed much.Clearly the Prime Minister of Jamaica & the P.M responsible for Free movement has sided with our P.M.
http://www.guyanaobservernews.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1104&Itemid=94
“Golding is of the view that these issues must be brought to the table and discussed, as Heads of State must be responsive to the particular difficulties that a country may have.
He explained that Jamaica is close to Haiti and now his country has a large problem with many Haitians who have migrated to Jamaica.
“And it has posed many problems for us in different ways, but these are issues that we must come to the table with. I do not think it is the proper approach for any head to take a unilateral position and to forsake our sovereignty to do what we think is in our best national interest.
“We are part of a community and if we have difficulty in honouring our commitment, let us talk about it because I don’t think that any of us is so unreasonable that we are not prepared to empathise and work with a country that may have difficulty in fulfilling an obligation,” Prime Minister Golding said.
He is hoping that the 30th meeting of the Heads of Government of the Caribbean Community reaches a consensus on free movement.
Prime Minister Golding reiterated the decision that was made at the Intercessional meeting which was held in St. Vincent and the Grenadines where it was agreed that by the end of 2009, all CARICOM nationals, whether they are journalists or entertainers, would be free to move within the CARICOM community.
He added that his country is not waiting until the end of this year to honour that agreement, but have already started to do so.
“Let’s not each go out on our own trolley and take unilateral and independent position, a community cannot be run that way.”
Also commenting on the immigration issue was Prime Minister of Dominica, Roosevelt Skerrit, who urged for the region to understand that free movement does not mean that persons can reside illegally in any other country.
He too shared the view that this issue should be extensively discussed.”
lholder // July 5, 2009 at 4:50 PM
Hello Folks,
Jeff Cumberbatch is right when he says that the Constitution prohibits the deprivation of people’s property. Note, however, that overstaying in a country is unlawful, and that is a specific provision of the Immigration Act. Thus, although the Constitution forbids depriving people of their property, it does not forbid the detention and repatriation of illegal immigrants.
Thus, what is needed is for the Government to make the appropriate arrangements regarding the property of illegal immigrants. Note that such arrangements do not include bearing the costs of shipping the consumer durables of such individuals to their home countries.
One way of dealing with the problem is to detain the illegal immigrants in Her Majesty’s Prisons at Dodds, and give them or their representatives a fixed amount of time to dispose of the property. When that time has elapsed, the immigrants would be repatriated. Note that once the amount of time is reasonable, e.g., four weeks, the Government would not be in breach of the Constitution even if the items are not sold.
By far the most important point to grasp is that even if illegal immigrants accumulate property, it does not mean that they are exempt from detention prior to repatriation.
Anonjam // July 5, 2009 at 5:10 PM
Well explained Mr. Holder.
Let me just add that before the illegal immigrant is detained, a deportation order must be made (unless he is being charged with a criminal offence).
Anonymous // July 5, 2009 at 5:21 PM
It makes one wonder what purpose is jeff cumberbatch serving by delaying the deportation of these illegals even more by promoting this stuff.
lholder // July 5, 2009 at 6:00 PM
Anonjam,
You do not need a deportation order to detain an illegal immigrant. If the authorities have sufficient cause to believe that an individual is in the country illegally and you check that individual’s passport and he is actually illegal, then that constitutes sufficient cause for detention and repatriation.
The authorities have two choices. The first is to ask the individual to leave voluntarily, i.e., pay for his own airline ticket or make arrangements to pay for his ticket in the event that he has been detained. If the individual is unable to pay for his own ticket and the State has to pay for it, then the State can (it does not have to) assign ‘deportation’ status to that individual even though he has not committed a crime.
It is important to recognise that ‘deportation’ has a specific meaning in immigration law, and that meaning is that the individual is prohibited from entering the country again unless that restriction is lifted by the authorities. I am not familiar with all of the reasons why an individual may be deported, but I am sure that the reasons are not restricted to criminal activities on the part of the deported individuals.
Anonjam // July 5, 2009 at 7:39 PM
I am not familiar with all of the reasons why an individual may be deported, but I am sure that the reasons are not restricted to criminal activities on the part of the deported individuals.
—————————–
You are correct when you say that it is not restricted to criminal activity. I agree with you. However I would suggest that you are not exactly correct when you say:
“You do not need a deportation order to detain an illegal immigrant. If the authorities have sufficient cause to believe that an individual is in the country illegally and you check that individual’s passport and he is actually illegal, then that constitutes sufficient cause for detention and repatriation.”
Let me start by saying this: Not every breach of the law is a criminal offence.
For example the Companies Act states that every company shall file an annual return with the corporate affairs office by the 1st of every month. If the company does not file an annual return the company is liable to pay a fine. A company that doesn’t file an annual return is in breach of the law but it isn’t guilty of a criminal offence.
A criminal offence is either a common law offence or a statutory offence. An act or an ommission is only a statutory offence if the statute stipulates that it is. So the statute may say something like “Any person who does “A” shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable upon conviction to a fine or “X” years in prison”.
Section 13 does not stipulate that overstaying one’s permitted time is a criminal offence. It is certainly a breach of the law but it is not a criminal offence. In other words, you won’t see an illegal immigrant before a magistrate charged with overstaying his/her permitted time in Barbados pursuant to section 13 of the Immigration Act (he/she may be charged with something else).
The section clearly stipulates that a deportation order may be made against a person who has overstayed his/her time in Barbados. The illegal immigrant may be detained pending the deportation order being prepared and executed. However, a police officer or immigration officer would be acting outside of his/her power if they sought to detain someone without obtaining a deportation order sometime after within a reasonable time after that person’s detention (once again they may be detained for committing or suspicion of committing another offence). In any event, a deportation order is needed at some point if an illegal immigrant is being detained in accordance with section 13 of the immigration act.
If someone is merely being “asked to leave” (rather than being deported), they should not be detained.
J // July 5, 2009 at 8:50 PM
Lindsay Holder wrote at 4:50 on July 5th “One way of dealing with the problem [of the property of illegal immigrants] is to detain the illegal immigrants in Her Majesty’s Prisons at Dodds, and give them or their representatives a fixed amount of time to dispose of the property.”
Dear Lindsay:
I can’t believe that you are advising that illegal immigrants be IMPRISONED at Dodds because the government did not THINK before hand about what to do the with property (or even more important what oto do with Bajan born children) of people it planned to deport.
And what is the government doing with the Bajan born children of illegal immigrants. I trust that the government is not withholding these children from their parents, or deporting these Bajan born children.
Regarding the property of immigrants would it not be simpler, kinder and less expensive for the the immigrant to have a friend or relative take charge of disposing of the property, failing that the government should dispose of the property at FAIR MARKET VALUE, and then send the money to the immigrant.
But this foolishness is exactly what we get when government policy seems to be based on racism, emotion, and the desire to satisfy the ignorant majority.
lholder // July 5, 2009 at 9:35 PM
Anonjam,
As stated tonight by Minister, Senator Maxine McClean, overstaying is unlawful. It is not a criminal offence, but the individual can be detained pending his or her ‘voluntary’ repatriation. The State can detain the individual on the grounds that if released, the individual would not leave the country as agreed. For those types of circumstances, no deportation orders are required.
J,
Do not jump on me. I gave two possible alternatives, but of course thare are others. Your suggestions are quite appropriate. However, what is the connection between your coherent statements in the first three paragraphs and the emotional outbursts in the last paragraph?
Anonjam // July 5, 2009 at 9:46 PM
If Senator Mccclean said that, she is mistaken.
There must be a deportation order.
She may be refering to section 21(11) of the companies act which says:
Unless otherwise directed by the Minister, a person
against whom a deportation order is made may be requested or
allowed to leave Barbados voluntarily provided that he complies
with the conditions governing his voluntary departure.
Even under this section there must be an order.
Anonjam // July 5, 2009 at 9:47 PM
Sorry that is section 21 of the Immigration Act….Not the companies Act
J // July 5, 2009 at 10:37 PM
Dear Lindsay:
It is not an emotional outburst.
It pains me greatly when I see my government (any party) acting without thinking things through carefully. I expect my government (any party) to act intelligently at ALL times.
Sargeant // July 5, 2009 at 11:18 PM
@J
• But this foolishness is exactly what we get when government policy seems to be based on racism, emotion, and the desire to satisfy the ignorant majority.
**************************************
As a bona fide member of the “ignorant majority”, I would appreciate knowing the race of the people that the Gov’t has deported.
Jay // July 6, 2009 at 12:51 AM
It also seems like Barbados is not the only country being condemned.Antigua & Barbuda looks like it will be the next target of the ‘regionalists’ soon enough.
In Antigua,they are also not allowing any prior LEGAL to finish up any unfinished business & instead either detain them for sometime or deport them.I wonder why the alleged “abused” didn’t apply for Antiguan Citizenship through the Antiguan Millenium Naturalization act in 2000 ?
http://www.kaieteurnewsonline.com/2009/07/05/guyanese-sent-home-from-antigua-alleges-mistreatment/
———————————————-
“Guyanese sent home from Antigua alleges mistreatment
“If I could find a good job in Guyana, there is no way I will return to Antigua.”
These were the words of Adrian Forde, a Guyanese who was recently sent back from the island after spending 15 years of his life.
Forde returned to Guyana three months ago after Antiguan authorities refused to renew his work permit, although he had a stable job with one employer for almost the entire time he spent on the island.
He described the recent statements by Prime Minister Baldwin Spencer, at the opening of the ongoing CARICOM Heads of Government Conference in Georgetown as not entirely the real situation.
Prime Minister Spencer told the Heads of Government of the region that his country’s liberal immigration policy cannot be sustained and his government was forced to rethink its immigration policy.
“The Immigration Department in Antigua and Barbuda has approved over 14,000 applications from persons seeking the extension of time to remain in the country.”
He noted that some of these applicants have received multiple extensions over the years.
In respect of work permits, the Prime Minister said that between 1998 and 2008, an average of 5000 work permits were granted on an annual basis.
He added that between 1999 and 2008, a total of 5,988 persons became citizens of Antigua and Barbuda.
But Forde has painted a different picture, accusing the Antiguan Immigration authorities of violating the rights of many Caribbean nationals and even disregarding the order of a judge.
Forde told this newspaper that after 15 years on the island with two four-year extensions of his work permit, he went to regularise his status, but was promptly detained.
He said that after three days in custody he and other illegal immigrants were taken before a judge, who ordered that they be released.
However, no sooner had they walked out of the courtroom than the immigrants were promptly re-arrested and placed in a bus and taken back to the immigration office where they were again detained.
According to Forde, they spent another four days in custody despite the judge’s order.
Fortunately, his employer managed to secure the services of an attorney on the island who made representation for him to be released and subsequently sent home.
“Those who can’t afford a lawyer had to remain in custody. If you don’t have money you suffer,” Forde told this newspaper.
Forde said that during his detention, he observed that there were about 15 of his countrymen along with Jamaicans and other Caribbean nationals who have now been left behind.
“There were people in there who were detained for almost a month,” he explained.
The Antiguan Prime Minister had said that his country will continue to welcome persons from across the Caribbean to its shores but the current immigration practices must be revised.
A closer examination is warranted in respect of the capacity of the country’s various socio-economic institutions and infrastructure to adequately manage the continued request of persons desirous of taking up residence there.
But according to Forde, the burden on the socio-economic institutions from foreign nationals is minimal.
He said that for instance, most immigrants whose children are with them have enrolled them into private schools on the island.
Forde said that while he is inclined to remain in Guyana, he would like to return to Antigua to “tie up some loose ends.”
“I have left a bank account and my home with all my things inside,” he told this newspaper.
With island nations in the Caribbean feeling the brunt of a global economic crisis, both Barbados and Antigua and Barbuda have been clamping down on illegal immigrants.
Guyana’s President Bharat Jagdeo had called for an end to what he called the maltreatment of CARICOM nationals.
However, both countries have denied accusations that illegal immigrants are being mistreated.”
The Scout // July 6, 2009 at 7:36 AM
There is a ground swell of concerns in St. Lucia about the amount of illegals in that country, especially guyanese. It seems P.M Thompson has opening a can of worms that had it not been open now would have expolded very soon. I keep saying we’re picnicking under a dangerous volcano which is about to erupt. A small eruption has been caused by P.M Thompson but the full blast is still going to occur. The citizens of these countries will cause the full blast unless the administration heed their demands
Anonymous // July 6, 2009 at 7:38 AM
So true Scout.
Please make your voice heard scout.
The Scout // July 6, 2009 at 7:43 AM
While in some way, I can understand thw P.M and Foreign Min ’s of Barbados and indeed other regional governments for staying clear of Guyana’s domestic problems, it must also be pointed out that these problems are effcting the rest of the region. Therfore I think it is time the hrads of the region sit down with Jagdeo and read the riot act to him. Demand that he put his house in order or else the country will be expelled from Caricom?csme. The region just cannot continue to allow not only the burden of guyanese illegals but the advancement of the region to a more untified body, that respects the sovereignty of each other.
livinginbarbados // July 6, 2009 at 7:48 AM
@The Scout
“Therfore I think it is time the hrads of the region sit down with Jagdeo and read the riot act to him. Demand that he put his house in order or else the country will be expelled from Caricom”
Even if one agreed with this, how do you think it can happen? PM Thompson has been critical of other HOGs ‘interfering’ in Barbados’ domestic policies, and he re-iterated the point in his Georgetown press conference.
But assuming that you have thought, or are thinking it through, what grounds would you put forward for trying to expel a country from Caricom, and to whom else would such conditions apply?
Negroman // July 6, 2009 at 9:22 AM
I am concern that our Prime Minister is not getting it right with this new immigration policy.
Prime Minister David Thompson is asking undocumented illegal immigrants to leave with no deportation order in their passports and those who do not comply or are in serious breaches of our immigration law are deported with the deportation stamp in their passports.Those illegals who are ask to leave as indicated by our Prime Minister have the opportunity to return to Barbados after a very short period of time and with the possibility of staying up to six months with this new Caribbean Visa Card.When those illegals return to Barbados it more than likely that those illegals will return to their old ways.That is working illegally,living in substandard housing and generally operating in the same manner as before.
Prime Minister David Thompson it is an effort in futility that illegals will be able to return to Barbados after being ask to leave for breaching our immigration laws.I really do not see any serious improvement in the number of illegals in Barbados if this is the policy that you & your government is pursuing.
I think in England and I hope Jay could clarify this for me that if an individual is ask to leave or is deported from England that individual has to wait for at least ten (10) years before that individual is allow back into England.I believe something like that should be part of our new immigration policy.
Arni Walters our Minister of Immigration must be given some work to do.He should be signing all the deportation orders for all illegals.I believe if you are illegal and are caught there should not be any distinction between being ask to leave and being deported.All should be deported with the assurance that they will not be allow to return to Barbados maybe within a ten (10) year period.If that is done I think this inept,confuse government will be doing something significantly to address this illegal immigration issue.
The Scout // July 6, 2009 at 10:41 AM
Negroman
What is your say on this nanny migration policy. To me it is a way of the P.M backing down from his original stance. To be honest, it bothers me greatly, I’m disappointed. The problem is, there is no-one to turn to Mia would immigration floodgates and we might have to share our houses with these stinking guyanese. Everyday I hating them more and more and really I shouldn’t be hating people but I’m only human.
The Scout // July 6, 2009 at 10:42 AM
Thid is a political invasion
Negroman // July 6, 2009 at 11:37 AM
Scout
This nanny thing is downright stupid on the part of the fool,the incompetent ass we have as a Prime Minister David Thompson.
That is a loophole that is going to be exploited to the fullest by the Guyanese and I cannot blame them.We have many desperate Barbadian women willing to do nanny work and work in that area and now these Barbadian women will have to compete with non-nationals for such mundane jobs.
I can foresee many foolish Barbadian men applying for work permits for their Guyanese girlfriends under the pretext of looking for nannies to look after them or their relatives.I can see a greater number of non-nationals benefiting from that initiative.
This is a hopeless lot we have as a government,saying one thing and doing something else different.I think this nonsensical,inept,foolish,backward as ass government led by the foolish man David Thompson should give up the ghost.It has capitulated under the pressures from Bharat Jagdeo.Ralph Gonsalves,musty Norman Faria and the rich Indian financiers such as Peter Harris,Chatrani,Abdul Pandor and the rest of rat catcher/mango seller Indians & Pakistani
Scout we have lost the warThe political Judah has sold us out again.This new immigration policy is nothing but a piece of unworthy shit.
David Thompson you are a let down & a disgrace as a Prime Minister.We are going to get rid of you.You are a 1 term Prime Minister.
Barbados has been sold out to the Guyanese thanks to the half of Guyanese and the non-national Prime Minister David Thompson.
Anonymous // July 6, 2009 at 11:48 AM
After being insulted to your face and called a LIAR!
We are really seeing that our PM is a LIAR!
Baldwin Spencer has more balls than youuuu!
You believe that I voted for YOU!
And up to Saturday morning I was blocking for you!
FRAUD FRAUD FRAUD FRAUD!
Anonymous // July 6, 2009 at 11:49 AM
You are backpeddling Mr. PM!!!!
Anonymous // July 6, 2009 at 11:50 AM
Jagdeo has WON bajans give up!
Anonymous // July 6, 2009 at 12:03 PM
He is smiling allll the way to the Bank!
Thompson nil/Jagdeo 5
The Scout // July 6, 2009 at 12:46 PM
Negroman
Get rid of Thompson and do what? put in Mia? Oh my God, the very though of that sickens my stomach. You know something, we’re in trouble, maybe it is time for a patriotic 3rd party to be borned in Barbados. Both the two established parties seem to be singing the same song (lyrics) but to a different tone. I feel depressed right now for being a bajans. Mr Thompson, all is not lose PLEASE do a survey, see how bajans are thinking, we’re who put you their, you are our only hope right now, PLEASE don’t blow it.
Negroman // July 6, 2009 at 2:33 PM
Scout
I feel just like you.I will never vote for Mia Mottley to be Prime Minister of Barbados.I never want to see that disgraceful bunch of human waste to be government of Barbados again.However,David Thompson has disappointed me tremendously and by the same token I will never cast another ballot in Barbados either for the DLP or the BLP.Both political parties are a waste of time.
Scout I believe we must seek a referendum on Barbados continuation in CARICOM & CSME.I believe the same way those jokers for politicians seek our approval to give them the mandate to run our affairs,I believe issues that are of critical importance to us our vote should be require before any implementation of any policies is undertaken.We the people must demand that our voices be heard..
Scout David Thompson is a very weak leader and it was shown at the CARICOM Summit.He allowed Bharat Jagdeo to walk all over him.David Thompson is a disappointment as a Prime Minister.
Themis // July 6, 2009 at 3:50 PM
A vote for PDC, perhaps.
The Scout // July 6, 2009 at 4:02 PM
Negroman
You think Jagan would have been so bold as to call Errol Barrow a liar? Now my P.M went to that conference, called a press conference before the Heads met and stated his position. Even then, I detected a softening of his position.Now at the end of the conference he made an agreement with the same Jagdeo to open a backdoor for these same people to come through. Mr. P.M I’m losing confidence in you and quite honestly, you are the last hope I see for a true Barbados to continue, PLEASE don’t disappoint me, you know the way I feel about you.
Veritas // July 6, 2009 at 4:51 PM
Negroman ans Scout,
I thin you all have to be sensible. There are Barbadians living and working in other Caribbean islands. The Prime Minister of our island walks a tight-rope in relation to these issues.
What the CARICOM Prime Ministers agreed to in relation to the CSME is distinctly different from dealing with those who are here in Barbados illegally and how they are treated.
Other than offering to set up a Committee and investigate complaints – none of which have so far been documented by either side – what is being changed?
David Thompson said they will be removed. That has not changed.
Anonymous // July 6, 2009 at 4:52 PM
Listen to that comment by a guyanese writing in the starbroek news doing a feature piece.
Do you see why a lot of guyanese felt that they were the persons responsible for keeping barbados business afloat and for keeping us housed.
Mia told guyanese in georgetown that’the business sector was built upon the enterprise of guyanese migrants’.
When you had no other person than that fat,immoral slob;mia mottley telling the guyanese this no wonder they keep saying that they did so much for us and we are ungrateful.
Boy,I hate that man-woman mia mottley.
……………………………………………………
truth be told the treatment of our people in Barbados has much to do with the fact that some, not all but some of them, are seen as economic and/or political refugees and that is why the Barbadians are inclined to make the altogether demeaning remark that our people place a strain on the social services. Place a strain on social services my grandfather’s glass eye! If there is one thing that can be said about Guyanese it is that wherever we go we are almost always prepared to work hard to earn our livelihoods.
I know of a Guyanese building contractor, who, having traveled to Barbados and having been subjected to the customary shabby immigration treatment reserved for arriving Guyanese, curtly told the offending Immigration Officer that he was there to build houses for Barbadians because they did not have the skills to build those houses for themselves. That may have been an exaggeration but the truth is that the success of the Bajan construction industry is due in large measure to that country’s importation of Guyanese expertise. In other ways too the Bajans are indebted to us. Just last year, the former Barbados Prime Minister Mia Mottley acknowledged to an audience here in Georgetown that the Barbados business sector was, to a considerable extent, built on the pioneering entrepreneurship of Guyanese migrants.
Veritas // July 6, 2009 at 4:54 PM
You think Jagan would have been so bold as to call Errol Barrow a liar?
**********
Eric Williams lambasted Errol Barrow and called him worse things than a liar in 1976 over the BWIA affair! Remember what Eugenia Charles said about him being a senile old man?
None of this is new to Caribbean politics!
Anonymous // July 6, 2009 at 4:57 PM
Veritas
I know you are close to the prime minister ,so please carry back this advice to him for me please.
‘Tell him, if he does not reverse that position he has recently taken with allowing maids freedom to move,and if he does not ensure that he gets these illegal guyanese out quick-fast;he will soon find himself more hated than owen arthur.’
Tell him,please don’t take the people for granted,and don’t take them for fools.
Jay // July 8, 2009 at 11:32 PM
Negroman said:
I think in England and I hope Jay could clarify this for me that if an individual is ask to leave or is deported from England that individual has to wait for at least ten (10) years before that individual is allow back into England.I believe something like that should be part of our new immigration policy.
—————————————
If I’m not mistaken Uk policy only bans someone for 10 years automatically if they have lied on their immigration applications & 5 years if they have overstayed their time.Barbados currently seems to be practicing something like this with 1 year bans if a work permit is not renewed or someone is removed.US Immigration policy is much more harsh.If you overstay by 6 months there is a 3 year ban,but if it is 1 year it is a 10 year ban from re-entry.The interesting thing is if ANY Non-US citizen claims to be a US citizen it is a permanent ban.
However,since the Prime Minister has recanted on the removals they can actually be allowed back now.I completely agree with you that this whole idea surrounding free-movement of domestic workers is a complete farce.It is quite clear that Barbados should withdraw from CSME since even Jagdeo mentioned that domestic immigration policies actually counter anything the CSME treaty stands for.The reality is that a referendum of getting out of the CSME project would suffice & be legally binding. We all know most Bajans would definitely vote yes at this point.
I also think the security enhancements at Grantley Adams should include fingerprints or Iris scans on entry.It would definitely cut down on those who keep trying to re-enter Barbados illegally after being deported by just changing their names.Expanding the Immigration Department’s enforcement team dramatically while hitting employer’s with the maximum fine allowed by law would also seriously dent the ILLEGAL immigrants now residing within Barbados.
It is absolutely ridiculous that the Prime Minister has soften his stance when the country he is Prime Minister of is facing a huge ILLEGAL immigration problem.I can’t believe one summit basically changed his stance just like that,it is ridiculous.Maybe it is time to give the Immigration matter SOLELY to someone who maybe more capable such Ms. McClean or Mr. Freudal Stuart.