Dear Editor,
Why would a Human Rights Committee concern itself with a United States (US) Immigration decision to engage a traveler for secondary questioning? Where is the violation? The American Civil Liberties Union advises “If you are a non-citizen visa holder or visitor, you may be denied entry into the United States if you refuse to answer officers’ questions.” The one caveat to questioning offered by the ACLU is “Officers may not select you for questioning based on your religion, race, national origin, gender, ethnicity, or political.” Since neither Mae Thomas nor Guyana has filed a complaint with the US authorities alleging misconduct by the US Immigration officials and, the US Immigration and Customs did not deny entry, detain, or file charges of any kind against Mae Thomas, the question raised by the US representative Laurence Helfer “For example, how is the state party responding to allegations of corruption that have become publicly known, such as the detention of Ms. Mae Toussaint Jr Thomas (former Permanent Secretary), a senior public official, at the Miami airport in the US on April 8, 2023?” displays Helfer’s ignorance of the workings of his home country at best and is simply asinine at worst. I am logically lost searching for a pathway that equates secondary questioning by US Immigration (a routine occurrence) with ‘allegations of corruption’.
Mae Thomas made no false declaration to US Customs and was not carrying an amount of cash over the threshold but still subsequently lost her US Visa. This loss numbers Thomas among the fifty-odd persons who are/were perceived to be business associates or friendly with a wealthy Guyanese enterprise. There has been no allegation of corruption made by the US Embassy and the whispers (intentional) have been of ‘terrorist’ linkages to finance of the enterprise and subsequent laundering; these charges have also not been made publicly. I would ask Mr. Helfer if the US policy of targeting persons who (in most cases) unwittingly associate themselves with a US ‘person of interest’ is not patently unfair if (as in this case) there has been no public declaration by US authorities that the ‘enterprise’ is a target of law enforcement; for while a US Visa is not a human right, its revocation for an unwitting association, certainly causes emotional damage. Editor, while most of the questioning by the UN Human Rights Committee was within the bounds of reasoning, I suspect that Helfer was fed the Mae Thomas incident much like one is fed tripe in a cook-up by local cooks; it may look like meat but in the end, it remains just that ‘tripe’.
Sincerely,
Robin Singh
