Most of us have heard that we now live in a global village. People routinely travel from place to place, country to country for work, pleasure and leisure. Of necessity to regulate such movement there are laws governing travel into and out of the countries that make up our world.
Let me say up front, I support rules governing such movement. I agree that those who wish to visit a foreign country should show evidence of their legitimate intentions and the rules should be sensible, transparent, impartial, consistent and clear. They should serve to build the country and not diminish it.
Today a friend was refused entry to Trinidad. She is Guyanese. She first arrived here some 16 years ago as a young person and for the first few years renewed permissions to stay. She became friends with a Trinidadian young man; there was love and a baby. The young man did not stand up to his responsibility and the young mother then had to find ways to support herself and child. She fitted into that niche need for domestic support, with emphasis on care of the elderly and the infirm. She took on the number of positions needed to maintain her family and pay for her child's schooling and that would allow for a measure of sustainable security. She, however, neglected to continue to maintain her legal standing. In 2010, she decided that she should try to have her status regularised and wrote a letter describing her situation and applying for consideration to be a resident. From 2010 to 2014, she was given several extensions of six months while her case was being considered; she was even allowed to leave to attend her father's funeral and return within that period. She was then advised that she would have to leave.
Those senior and elderly citizens, whose lives depend on her support for their smooth running made an appeal to the then Honourable Minister of National Security, Gary Griffith, and while this appeal was being considered she remained in the country.
The Honourable Minister did not respond directly to the appeal, did not declare an actual amnesty, but encouraged those, who could show that they are indeed adding positive value to our society to go into the Immigration Office to have their cases reviewed; this she did and another round of extensions ensued. In 2015, support for the efficient discharge of jobs, support for a retiree, support for an arthritic elderly lady and support for a school-aged child notwithstanding, she was told she had to leave the country and left.
There was hope that a Minister's Permit might help. She returned letter in hand that the Minister's Permit was under consideration, but was deported. An appointment with the next Honourable Minister of National Security, Brigadier General Carlton Alfonso gave assurance that he had the power to show mercy and to actually sign the Minister's Permit; he never did it.
A renewed appeal was made to the current Honourable Minister of National Security, Major General (ret.) Edmond Dillon and still nothing. Today having not seen her child for a year, she tried to return in the hope of being allowed to spend six months with her child and was denied entry.
As I see it, it is women who are being discriminated against here. It is the women, who, in general, have to arrange for the care of the young, elderly and infirm. CSME allows tradesmen, with a job waiting, entry. A domestic helper in the same position is denied; she is not even on the list for consideration. There are cases of families, a mother and three children, all adults, all gainfully engaged: two sons and a daughter. The sons are given residency and the mother and daughter are being extended and extended, with the real prospect of having to leave. Tell me why I am wrong to conclude that this is clear discrimination against women.
JL Latchman
St Augustine