3rd-country deportees

As reported by this newspaper last week, Foreign Secretary Robert Persaud confirmed that Guyana is in discussions with the United States to develop a framework of understanding for the acceptance of third-country nationals deported from that country. “Third-country deportation” refers to a section of the US Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) that allows their Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to deport migrants to countries other than their country of origin. During immigration proceedings, Judges will designate a country where the migrant is supposed to be deported – usually their country of origin. If removal to the designated country is “impracticable, inadvisable, or impossible,” the INA authorises DHS to remove a non-citizen to a third country, which may or may not be one where they hold citizenship or nationality.
The deportations are part of the Trump Administration’s mass deportation campaign. They believe the approach will discourage migration to the US and encourage voluntary self-deportation. The Administration has also argued that third-country deportations are necessary because some countries refuse to accept their citizens back after they’ve been given an official deportation order by the US.  The Trump Administration has reportedly approached at least 58 Governments about accepting deportees. Muzaffar Chishti, a senior fellow at the Migration Policy Institute, has claimed, “Whether it is tariff concessions – or in the case of African countries, many of them are under the threat of being placed under a travel ban or their diplomats will be prevented from coming from the United States – these are the stakes that are all being used to get these agreements.”
This was the case last week with Dominica and Antigua and Barbuda, which had recently faced restrictions of visas to the US and then joined Guatemala, Honduras, Panama, Costa Rica, Mexico, El Salvador, Belize, Paraguay, Ghana, Eswatini (Swaziland), Rwanda, South Sudan and Uganda to accept third-country deportees.  A few days later, Nevis – also facing visa restrictions – signed an MOU which said they would accept non-criminal deportees from Caricom countries, with the exception of Haitians. In all of the “third countries”, the US pays for ancillary expenses in integrating the refugees in the third countries.
The Miami Herald quoted Foreign Minister Persaud as saying that Guyana’s situation in regard to accepting skilled migrants was “unique” and is due to an oil boom that has created, according to the business sector, a skills gap of between 70,000 and 80,000 people to meet its changing economy.
While all the details of the agreement have not been finalised, it was stated that in Guyana’s case, if an agreement is reached, we will not be accepting any persons with a criminal background, with the refugees expected to largely encompass persons denied asylum in the US but not desirous of returning to their home country, desirous of going to another country that is willing to receive them, and nonetheless highly skilled individuals. Additionally, all costs – screening, housing, legal processing, healthcare, employment or supervision associated with the refugee’s relocation – will be borne by the US for the stay until they are settled and it is decided where in the country the refugee will be sent.
In the meantime, APNU leader Aubrey Norton has vehemently rejected any agreement to accept any third-country deportees from the US. “The question becomes, why would we accept what others do not want? We demand a halt to this insane hurtling to an agreement that is not in our national interest,” he said. The sanctioned WIN opposition leader Azruddin Mohammed, who is embroiled in a legal battle to avoid being extradited to the US to face 11 criminal charges, has used the issue to call for the reconvening of the National Assembly to debate it.
Any outright rejection of the US request risks a cooling of that country’s support of our security architecture and should pragmatically be avoided. Acceptance, however, should be subject to definitive, low numerical caps, time limits (sunset clause), security vetting, a clear onwards resettlement plan and the right to suspend any agreement unilaterally.