“Home is the place where, when you have to go there/They have to take you in,” American poet Robert Frost writes in his poem The Death of the Hired Man. Countries cannot and ought not to refuse their own citizens; even when that citizen is a criminal offender. Although some countries – Guyana among them – argue against taking back nationals who have been resident overseas for many years, citing their lack of ties to their native lands, any citizen should be able to go home again.
Migration, never far from the front burner in Guyana, has been in the headlines recently yet again. And for some it holds the same status as offensive language. As far back as the Stone Age or since the beginning of time, our ancestors have migrated from one place in the world to the next for several reasons. Among the better known explanations given for human migration back then were because they were in search of food, or more arable lands, or because they were persecuted and chased out by warlike tribes.
No one should be surprised that these themes sound familiar; what goes around will continue to come around. However, back in the day, there were no borders, sovereignty or governments and people could just move freely to where they felt the prospects were better. Today migration is a carefully managed affair (and where it is not yet so it should be) and in most countries that take in immigrants it is handled by an entire arm of government headed by a minister.
Countries like the United States, Canada, Britain – in fact, most of the developed countries – have immigration policies because they did the research a long time ago and recognized that some of the skills needed for development would have to be imported. These policies cater for temporary and permanent migrants because while some immigrants seek to settle permanently, others only want to be away from their native lands for a time. For example, there are those who are fleeing political or religious persecution, or migrate for family reasons. And then there are those who only want to work for a period of time and return home.
Developed countries have typically targeted skilled persons for permanent and temporary migration. Canada, for example, has a skilled worker migration programme, while thousands of Asians have travelled to the US legally to work in the information technology sector. Unskilled labour, such as that provided by Mexicans and Central Americans in the farmlands of the US, has mostly been unregulated, driven by private sector employers, exploitative to the labour-migrants, and in many instances illegal.
A similar situation currently exists in the Caribbean. Skilled workers are openly pursued; non-skilled workers or those willing to do what are termed the ‘3D’ jobs (dirty, dangerous and dull) enter primarily through the ‘back door’ so to speak. The only known exception in this case has been the managed annual trek of the cane-cutters, but even that has had its issues.
Today’s problems will continue to persist and to grow until and unless Caricom develops a strategy to deal with the issue comprehensively. It should not be a government policy or even a bilateral one; the ugliness that has thus far been seen suggests that there is a great need for unanimity. Ideally, governments should (a) admit that their countries have need for unskilled labourers from other countries; (b) specify a time within which they will need the labour; (c) legislate a fair payment structure which includes airfares for these workers to and from their home countries; (d) allow the private sector in member states to hire workers from these pools or develop similar ones that are above board; (e) prosecute those caught hiring unregulated workers through the back door. This will by no means end the issue of illegal migration; countries the world over still struggle with that today. Nor is it all that could be done to address the situation. However, it will go a far way in mending the fences that appear to have broken down.
