Former Prime Minister Hamilton Green has launched a scathing attack on the Government’s decision to accept third-country nationals deported from the United States, describing the arrangement as an “abomination” and warning that Guyana must not surrender its sovereignty or compromise national security.
In a letter published by Village Voice News, Green said he initially dismissed reports that Guyana had agreed to receive people who were no longer wanted in the United States as malicious rumours intended to damage the Government.
He said subsequent confirmation that the arrangement was real and already being implemented left him deeply disturbed.
“Some time ago news filtered in that our government through its illustrious head of state had agreed to accept a number of persons not wanted by the United States government. I found this unbelievable and no more than malicious rumour being spread to taint our government.”
Green continued:
“Over the weekend reliable sources have confirmed that this travesty of accepting individuals unwanted, or deemed persona non grata by another state is true, and its implementation has started.”
His criticism follows the Government’s September 5 confirmation that Guyana and the United States had concluded a one-year migration cooperation framework under which Guyana would receive a limited number of vetted, skilled and non-criminal third-country nationals through the International Organization for Migration’s Assisted Voluntary Return Programme.
Six people—four Cubans and two Afghans—have already arrived. The Government says they were vetted, have no criminal backgrounds and voluntarily chose relocation to Guyana. It also says Guyana retains the right to reject anyone proposed for relocation, while the United States will cover relocation costs and the IOM will handle accommodation and support.
Green, however, questions the fundamental logic behind the policy.
‘No Logic, And No Good Sense’
He argues that if Guyana needs immigrants, the country should deliberately recruit people with skills that are in short supply rather than participate in arrangements that could alter its demographic and cultural character.
“Immigration has divided and is dividing political parties, and citizens in many parts of the world, many countries and Guyana should be numbered among such, ought to be concerned that wanton foolish immigration can change the demographic and cultural landscape of their countries, in the majority of cases, certainly not for the better.”
He said the Government’s policy should instead target specific national needs.
“What makes this adventure by our government heart-rending and stressful is that there is no logic, and no good sense to what is happening.”
Using the shortage of medical professionals as an example, Green said Guyana should admit people whose qualifications directly address identified gaps.
“However, by way of example, if we are short of medical professionals, such as physicians, specialists, nurses, and laboratory technicians the policy should be to admit into our country only persons with verified qualifications.”
He said the same principle should apply across other sectors, while stressing that qualifications alone are not enough.
“Further in each and every case we must be satisfied with the character, moral standing, physical and mental state of persons coming into our country to work and live. Of course, the question of security must always be paramount, and therein editor and citizens, is my problem.”
A Question of Sovereignty
Green, who says he has spent more than seven decades in public life, linked his concerns to what he regards as the erosion of Guyana’s internal and external security capacity.
“I have been in public life for more than seven decades and witnessed the dismantling of the best internal and external security system in the region from the late 80s.”
He also questioned whether Guyana possesses the diplomatic strength required to navigate what he described as an increasingly difficult international environment.
Green recalled a generation of Guyanese diplomats and foreign-policy figures, including Sir Shridath Ramphal, Fred Wills, Sir Lionel Luckhoo, Sir John Carter, Dr Cedric Grant, Rashleigh Jackson, Sir Ronald Austin, Rudy Collins, Rudy Insanally, Carl Greenidge and others, whom he credited with defending Guyana’s interests abroad.
He recalled that Guyana also regularly brought its diplomats together to assess international developments and their implications for the country.
“In addition to these persons of commitment and sagacity, annually we hosted meetings involving all our diplomats to review and understand the changing world, and the dynamics affecting Guyana.”
He further pointed to Guyana’s role in the Non-Aligned Movement, noting:
“First time in the hemisphere, Guyana in 1972, hosted a well-attended meeting of Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the non-Aligned movement.”
Green argues that this diplomatic tradition helped Guyana maintain its dignity and standing internationally.
“All of the above and its diplomatic corps, the confidence to deal with foreign powers large and small, to preserve our dignity, our sovereignty enabled us to be held with due regard by the majority of nation states.”
His strongest criticism was reserved for what he sees as a threat to the country’s sovereignty and the obligations inherited at independence.
“Today, we must all speak up against this abomination, and this disrespect for the sanctity of the contract we signed at independence on May 26, 1966.”
Green concluded with an appeal to Guyanese to defend the country’s national interests across generations.
“That contract was signed on behalf of our ancestors and our descendants, we must not betray them or fail them, and remind all and sundry that Guyana is not for sale.”
The Government has maintained that the arrangement is limited, temporary and subject to Guyana’s discretion, with the first six arrivals receiving support through the IOM. Guyana is also among several Caribbean countries that have agreed to receive small groups of US deportees under similar arrangements.
Green’s intervention nevertheless adds to mounting debate over the agreement, particularly questions about transparency, national security, immigration policy and whether Guyana’s interests are adequately protected in an arrangement negotiated with Washington.
