The Tribune

THE most recent comment by Senator Ted Cruz about the ongoing crisis on the US border with Mexico says it all. He has been a long-term critic of the Biden administration whom he accuses of failing to enforce US immigration laws there. But the Texan lawmaker has now gone further. He is quoted as saying the latest development involving more than 10,000 Haitians camping under the Del Rio International Bridge, after illegally entering the US, is “the most horrific thing I’ve ever seen”.

This situation is now reported to have eased as some of these migrants have apparently been moved elsewhere in the US while others have been sent back to Haiti. But what has puzzled many people is why Haitians in their thousands have turned up at the US/Mexican border, travelling through Colombia and Central American countries rather than trying to reach the US through the neighbouring Bahamas.  The answer doubtless lies in their calculation that under the Biden presidency the US is now more welcoming to migrants so that the overland route is easier for direct entry.

As the focus has suddenly switched to our archipelago – with some 900 Haitian migrants heading for Bahamian shores having been intercepted at sea and then held in detention in Inagua – much has already been written in the press about this. But it is such an important issue that I hope further comment might be justified.

It is well known that mass migration from Haiti to The Bahamas has been a threat to the country for many years. While Haiti, with its population of more than 10 million, continues to suffer from political and economic instability and has become an impoverished country, it is inevitable that its deprived citizens will seek a better life elsewhere. The nearby Bahamas is an attractive destination. But, as conditions in Haiti have worsened – with the recent assassination of its President and another earthquake following the deadly one in 2010 – and migration has increased, the issue has become a ticking time bomb that surely needs to be addressed urgently.

It is self-evident that with a population of some 400,000 spread out over a large number of islands, many of which are underpopulated, the country could be swamped by uncontrolled, disorderly and illegal mass migration. A large influx could quickly precipitate an overwhelming humanitarian crisis. It would put impossible pressure on civil society, affecting public services, housing, education and health – and even food supplies – to the unacceptable detriment of Bahamian citizens. Furthermore, injecting large numbers of foreigners into communities could lead to criminality and violence and it could even threaten the nation’s very existence. All this is, of course, well known but is perhaps worth repeating as a timely reminder that the first duty of governments is to protect their own people and ensure their security – and one element of that is controlling illegal immigration.

Many believe that such considerations should be the starting point of any discussion about migration from Haiti, not least by those who tend to be sympathetic to the plight of migrants who, they contend, are after all only trying to escape danger in their own country in an effort to seek a better life elsewhere. Certainly, the importance of treating everybody humanely and with dignity and respect in accordance with the law should never be underestimated, particularly in the case of those who are suffering from circumstances beyond their control.

Thus, all countries need to have in place up-to-date immigration legislation so that all concerned are aware of what they can and cannot do and to ensure those concerned are treated fairly.

Controlled flows of people across international borders are often seen as an important element of globalisation in so far as – in the case of larger receiving countries, in particular – migration can be a source of increased prosperity and beneficial to their societies. But for The Bahamas, which is classified by the UN as a Small Island Developing State, conditions peculiar to its particular status come in to play, and it is reasonable to expect others to recognise this. Nonetheless, while putting the interests of their own citizens first, it is essential for the government to find a balance between protecting its own people and respecting the human rights of migrants.

Even with the assistance of the US Coast Guard, finding and intercepting vessels carrying migrants surely remains a difficult task, partly because of non-functioning drones and radar systems but also, reportedly, due to the lack of an RBDF base nearer to Haiti – for example on Ragged Island. It is likely that some migrant boats are slipping through the net. But, for those who are caught, it is clear that the existing procedure of deportation, including those who have not had a chance to be heard in a court of law, has until now kept a lid on the problem and has wide public support.

With so many migrants being held last week in Inagua, the island was said to be on the brink of an humanitarian crisis. According to the press, Human Rights Bahamas has welcomed the opportunity for all detainees to appear before a magistrate sent there for that purpose – and reports yesterday that more than 500 illegal immigrants were deported over the weekend will be welcomed by many. That said, there is the obvious danger of legitimate refugees and asylum seekers being swallowed up in mass court hearings and the criminalisation of people who are denied a chance to put their cases individually.

So, in the midst of uncertainty and potential lack of due process for individuals – and while the country is under particular scrutiny about mass illegal immigration – the essential first step seems to be for the government to expedite the enactment of new legislation. It is said the law needs to be updated and clarified. A draft Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill has been around for a while, and The Tribune was writing editorially about the need to bring it forward for debate as long ago as the beginning of 2019. While deportation of illegal migrants, with or without an appearance in court, has worked so far, it is surely essential to ensure that the Bahamas government consistently acts in accordance with the nation’s own laws as well as its international obligations.

RIGHTS OF MAJORITY MUST BE PROTECTED

During the last few week in the UK, climate change protesters have been blocking some of the nation’s main highways. This has caused havoc and massive disruption of traffic. The group concerned calls itself “Insulate Britain”. It claims its purpose is to publicise its demand that the government should pay for all homes in the country to be insulated by 2030, and that physically blocking highways is the only way to bring itself to public attention.

 Motorists in huge tailbacks of traffic have been in angry clashes with protesters. But, to many people’s bewilderment, the police have adopted a softly, softly approach in removing the protesters who seem to have been emboldened to spread their activities. In explaining their supine reaction, the police have complained they lack sufficient powers to stop these eco-protesters. But that appears to be a hollow claim given that obstructing a public highway is already an offence.

Some people regard these events as an example of democracy in practice when the right to protest must be respected, even in such extreme circumstances. The vast majority, however, consider that only in a tolerant country like Britain could unacceptable action of this sort by a minority be allowed to happen, and they have been demanding stronger action by the responsible authorities.

 It must have come as no surprise, therefore, that on the eve of the current annual Conservative Party conference, the Prime Minister took the bull by the horns by pledging his support for the “law-abiding majority” going about their daily business; and he announced new measures – including fines and imprisonment – to stop what he called the “reckless and selfish” behaviour of this minority.

 That will surely go down well with those attending the conference. But many question why immediate action was not taken. Maybe it is a lesson to us all that, while our rights in a democracy – including the right to protest – are sacrosanct, a country’s leaders should always be guided by a sense of proportion in balancing those rights against the public’s broader obligations in a free society.

INSTITUTIONS TOO OFTEN PROTECT THEIR OWN

In Britain last week, huge publicity about the outcome of the trial of a serving Metropolitan Police officer, who was convicted of kidnapping, raping and murdering a 33-year-old woman walking home alone in south London in March this year, has reflected the outrage of a shocked nation. Under the guise of a false arrest for breaking COVID rules, the police officer in plain clothes handcuffed her, forced her into his car, and later burnt and dumped her body in woods near his home in Kent.

The judge termed the case a “devastating, tragic, brutal and grotesque crime” and sentenced him to a whole-life term of imprisonment which is reserved for the most heinous crimes. It means there is no provision for parole and he will die in jail.

Unsurprisingly, this horrific case has rocked people’s trust and confidence in the police though many contend that one rogue cop should not result in condemnation of the whole Metropolitan Police force that protects law and order in London. But what is worrying many people is that it has now been revealed that he had been described earlier as a sick and dangerous individual who should never have been near a police uniform. He had an unsatisfactory record in his police job and was a known drug user who had an unconcealed taste for “extreme pornography”. Yet, despite his unacceptable behaviour, he still managed to stay in the police force.

Another well-known case affecting the Met that caused much concern was its flawed investigation following the murder of a black male teenager, Stephen Lawrence, in London in 1993.

His killers were not brought to justice for some 20 years – and an official inquiry culminated in the Macpherson Report of 1999 which found that the investigation had been marred by professional incompetence and failure of leadership as well as institutional racism.

Yet another example in Britain, many years ago, of the deficiencies of large organisations was the case of the defection of two establishment figures – the infamous duo of Burgess and Maclean – who had been spying for the Soviet Union and had fled to Moscow together in the 1950s. They were aided and abetted by the notorious fellow spy Kim Philby, who had earlier warned both that the British security net was closing in on them, and who became known as the “Third Man”. In his book entitled “The Climate of Treason”, first published in 1979, the author Andrew Boyle expertly chronicles their story and how, for many years, they survived official scrutiny of their nefarious activities. Boyle maintains that Britain’s ruling class at that time was dominated by a tight web of loyalties, friendships and school and club relationships and was reluctant to investigate one of its own. So the failure of British authorities to unmask the activities of such people, despite compelling evidence that something was amiss, sprang from a mix of complacency, poor leadership, inertia and misplaced loyalties.

I mention these cases in order to emphasise the importance of checks and balances in any system of democracy. They show how members of the public should be on their guard about potential inadequacies, weaknesses, mistakes – and sometimes the abuse of power – of large organisations that can develop into unaccountable behemoths; and these can include police forces and governments themselves. In all democracies they should be placed under constant public scrutiny in order to protect the people’s freedoms.