By Antonio Dey | HGP Nightly News |
GEORGETOWN, GUYANA — Guyana’s parliamentary opposition has expressed unified and severe concerns over the government’s decision to accept third-country foreign nationals expelled from the United States, warning that absorbing relocated individuals will overwhelm already strained social services, compromise national security, and expose gaps in domestic immigration law.
The policy pushback was delivered in interviews with HGP Nightly News by parliamentary leaders across the opposition spectrum, including Member of Parliament Odessa Primus, General Secretary of We Invest in Nationhood (WIN) and Chairman of the Parliamentary Sectoral Committee on Foreign Relations; Aubrey Norton, Chairman of A Partnership for National Unity (APNU); and Opposition Member of Parliament Amanza Walton, Leader of the Forward Guyana Movement.
Severe Public Security and Law Enforcement Concerns
Addressing official assertions that only “vetted and skilled” non-criminals are being admitted, Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Odessa Primus cautioned that framing deportees primarily around professional skills offers false reassurance when domestic policing is already overextended:
- Classification and Crime: Primus noted that emphasizing technical skills does not mitigate underlying security risks or potential past criminal history.
- Overburdened Police Force: With the Guyana Police Force facing acute manpower shortages and resource constraints—recently highlighted by the US Department of State’s Level 3 Travel Advisory—the state lacks the domestic surveillance capacity to monitor relocated persons.
- Social Infrastructure Pressure: An influx of non-national transferees risks further straining public healthcare facilities, local housing markets, and community stability.
“While I understand that criminals have different classifications, it doesn’t make them any less criminal,” MP Primus asserted. “Saying that they are skilled—I’m not necessarily sure how that is supposed to make it a better thing. Because if you have a rapist who is a carpenter, I don’t think that makes him a better rapist because he’s excellent at carpentry.”
“In this system that we have here… our police force is not necessarily one of the best. There are officers who try, but we do not have the tools and the manpower to get it done,” Primus added. “Now you’re going to bring somebody who may be a specialized criminal… we’re opening a can of worms that we may potentially not be able to handle.”
Lack of Transparency and Verification of Credentials
APNU Chairman Aubrey Norton criticized the administration for entering into a sensitive third-country agreement without prior bipartisan consultation or parliamentary debate:
- Bypassing Stakeholders: Norton said the government acted unilaterally, without consulting the parliamentary opposition, regional leadership, or civil society.
- Unverifiable Vetting: Norton questioned whether robust verification mechanisms exist to validate background checks and credentials in an environment where fraudulent certification is difficult to detect.
- Geopolitical Concessions: He questioned whether Guyana entered into the agreement merely to satisfy Washington’s foreign policy objectives at the expense of national security.
“The government should have had a discussion with the opposition and other stakeholders before moving ahead with that,” Norton stated. “There is no mechanism for us to know if these people are properly screened, what are their skill sets… Are you just bringing them to satisfy US interests? And then in a society like this where anybody has come with bogus certificates, how do you know that their certificates are authenticated?”
Legal Gaps and the 144-Annual Intake Cap
Forward Guyana Movement Leader Amanza Walton disclosed that the bilateral framework permits Guyana to receive up to 144 relocated individuals annually, raising serious concerns over the absence of domestic statutory structures to handle them:
- Absence of Asylum Law: Walton underscored that Guyana is not a signatory to the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (or its 1967 Protocol) and possesses no national statutory asylum framework.
- Limits of IOM Oversight: While the International Organization for Migration (IOM) is contracted to provide temporary housing and integration services, Walton argued that international agencies cannot substitute for state sovereign responsibilities or legal frameworks.
- Policy Neglect: Walton noted that despite advocating for a comprehensive, national migration governance framework for over six years, the administration has left the country legally unprepared to manage long-term refugee settlements.
