Revise laws to welcome Venezuelan refugees

THE EDITOR: The recent declaration of High Court Judge Frank Seepersad that the UN Convention on Refugees and the principle of non-refoulment is not applicable to the jurisdiction of TT is a tough pill for human-rights campaigners to swallow.

On the surface, it appears inconceivable that the refugee or asylum status granted by the UN High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) will be ignored by the court in a small-island Caribbean state. However, Seepersad was very clear that his ruling must interpret the existing legislation, for which the 1976 Immigration Act takes precedent.

The Government is a signatory to the UN Geneva Convention on Refugees since 2000, but we must appreciate that this is merely a moral agreement to the global order’s prevailing consensus on how to treat refugees. By signing a convention, a government is signalling its intention to instrumentalise laws in spirit with the Geneva convention. But since 2000 our governments have not ratified the convention.

The decision of Seepersad is therefore consistent with rule of law. But we are now poignantly reminded to put pressure on the legislative arm of Parliament to pass laws or modify laws to recognise the convention.

The 1976 Immigration Act must be revised to avert easy detention of “illegal migrants” and encourage “orders of supervision” in which migrants are allowed freedom of movement and work once they visit a designated government office. The case of non-refoulement or non-return to a crisis nation is not guaranteed by the existing act and this law should be negated to avoid the inhumane hounding of refugees and their detention, which place pressure on our national security forces.

If refugees and asylum seekers are recognised by the UNHCR as having valid refugee status, with TT being a loyal member of the UN, we should respect the refugee status of some of our migrants, notably from Venezuela. TT’s profile as a protector of human rights is being undermined by poor treatment of asylum seekers and may provoke international sanctions in the future.

It is inhumane for government and opposition parliamentarians to not discuss with the public the issue of migration and refugee laws in TT. There is an apparent reticence or muted voice from either side of Parliament about debating on the nature and status of detainees, many of whom are now legally classified as illegal immigrants.

With national elections approaching, I would have thought that the Rowley regime would be intent to protect many migrants who are staying in the country via law changes, but his covid-inspired rhetoric about the country becoming a “refugee camp” highlights a sustained form of xenophobia.

Meanwhile, Opposition Leader Kamla Persad-Bissessar has not lobbied the Government to create legal changes to empower asylum-seekers.

It must also be noted that the propaganda of the utility of the 2014 Cabinet plan of action for refugees and illegal immigrants remains an important guide, as it signals a trajectory of the Government seeking to instrumentalise laws to respect refugee status. This Cabinet plan is being misinterpreted as law. But the plan comes from the executive arm of state and cannot trump the court.

We do not have the “armed forces” capacity to hunt down refugees and send them home. It is a better usage of resources to pass laws to legalise their “residence” in the country in a manner in which they can work to foster benefits to the economy.

CHANDRADATH MADHO

Tableland