6 days ago
3
The Senate today held an extensive debate on the Safe Third Country Agreement between Belize and the United States, an accord designed to strengthen regional cooperation on migration and asylum processing. Leading the debate was Senator for Government Business, Anthony Sylvestre, who sought to clarify misinformation and reassure Belizeans that the agreement poses no threat to national sovereignty or security. Senator Sylvestre explained that under the terms of the agreement, Belize would only receive a maximum of ten persons per year for a two-year period, stressing that it is a controlled and manageable process. He emphasized that fears of an influx of refugees being flown into Belize are “unfounded and misleading,” noting that the agreement is carefully structured to reflect Belize’s humanitarian capacity and commitment to regional cooperation.
Hon. Anthony Sylvestre, Senator for Government Business: “So Madam President, the question may be asked, what is the impetus for us as a nation to have entered into this agreement? The answer, Madam President, stares us right in the face. It is the same reasons that would have driven us as a nation to become a party to the 1984 convention against torture and other treatment or cruel, inhumane or degrading penalties, or the 1951 convention relating to the status of refugees, or the 1967 protocol relating to the status of refugees. And it is for these reasons, these conventions Madam President are cataloged in the preamble of the agreement. For preambles, Madam President, found in these legal documents they provide the reason, or as the French would say, the raison d’etre behind them. It lays, Madam President, it lies Madam President out of our common humanity. It is premised on an awareness and an acceptance of common humanity and the obligation to assist with mitigating strife of fellow humans. For this framework agreement is an offshoot of these shared common ideals of nations in respect of persons who have been driven from their homeland or fled their homeland and who have had to seek refuge elsewhere. Now of course, Madam President, we know that it is not every and anyone you give refuge or not every and anyone you let in your home. And this is precisely why, Madam President, the government has ensured that the agreement that has been signed has a number of safeguards to protect the interests and security of Belize including, as the Foreign Minister has stated, restrictions on nationalities that can be transferred. That is to say, it be limited to CARCOM Nationals and Central American Nationals excluding Guatemalans. There’s also the safeguard of consideration of professional skills and criminal record of the intended transferees. There’s also a cap on annual number of possible applicants. Further, there is a right of the government to terminate or suspend the agreement at any time. And finally, the life of the agreement is limited to two years.”
During the debate, Opposition Senator Patrick Faber voiced concerns about what he described as a lack of transparency and inadequate public consultation before the signing of the accord. He criticized the government for not providing more information to the public and Parliament, adding that he first learned of the agreement from the U.S. Embassy’s Chargé d’Affaires. Faber said that without clearer financial and administrative details, he could not support the measure at this time.
Hon. Patrick Faber, United Democratic Party: “You know, sometimes you’d want to give the government the benefit of the doubt. You’d want to be able to say there is no clandestine purpose. You’d want to be able to say, “oh, it’s just a good gesture.” Or we’d want to be able to support the arguments that my friend, the lead senator for government waxed poetically just know about all the agreements we’ve signed before and how this is something good for humankind, taking in refugees. But why doesn’t America keep them ? They have far more resources than us. One of the most glaring pieces, Madam President, of this agreement is that section that said, “Nothing set forth in this agreement shall be interpreted in such a way that commits to disbursement or allocation of funds by the parties.” This has got to be the most alarming thing. So we will take these citizens of other countries who are seeking refuge, America is telling us, and if you listen to the government when they speak about this they say, “No man, we will have arrangements later on.” I don’t believe anything that the government says. No financial obligation, Madam President, on the part of the United States exists in this document. In fact, it tells you that in fact if the United States decides that it cannot or it has some kind of impediment for in its budget and it sees that other things are more important that they reserve the right to cut the funding even if they agree to it. Well they’re not agreeing to it, number one and number two they’re telling you even if I give you, if even if we give you the resources needed to take care of persons who come under this agreement listen we reserve the right to take it back, and we know very well the United States can give and take back, we saw that very clearly with the MCC Compact.”
Also contributing to the debate was Private Sector Senator Kevin Herrera, who noted that the agreement should be viewed in context with previous immigration and amnesty programs that involved far larger numbers of migrants. While acknowledging the agreement’s limited scale, Herrera expressed caution regarding its long-term implications and the evolving relationship between Belize and the United States on migration policy.
Hon. Kevin Herrera, Business Community Senator: “That in my view, we have a much larger immigration problem and challenge than the United States. And so it behooves me. It baffles me, in fact, why this agreement was not reciprocal because we also need help. But like how the United States used to be, we have welcomed those who sought Belize for a better life. We don’t have a Statue of Liberty welcoming the immigrants from the Sapodilla Cayes, Madam President, but we do have the majestic mahogany tree offering shade to the weary travelers. From the elements as well as the warm welcome from this country’s friendly people. Even given this scenario, Madam President, we are willing to assist under the spirit of cooperation. There are many who would say our problem is so large we cannot extend a helping hand. But given that it’s only 10 persons per year, it’s limited to 10 persons per year, Madam President. Perhaps under the spirit of cooperation and equal respect, perhaps we could lend a hand this time. But the point must be made, Madam President, that we have a larger, a bigger challenge than the United States with respect to immigration.”
In closing, Senator Sylvestre reiterated that the agreement upholds Belize’s international obligations while safeguarding national interests and ensuring that local communities and resources are not overburdened.
English (US) ·