International protection is lacking in the global South and the global North: The failure of international protection in Trinidad and Tobago

By Kamilah Morain

On the night of February 5, a boat carrying 38 Venezuelan migrants, including several children, was intercepted at sea. This was not the first time that such vessels had been intercepted by the Trinidad and Tobago Coast Guard and pushed back, but it was the first time that a maritime interdiction resulted in the death of a 9-month-old child and the shooting of his mother.

Trinidad and Tobago has been consistent in denying international protection to migrants fleeing Venezuela toward our shores, and these efforts have intensified since the June 2019 registration process was closed. After that process ended, the government declared that no similar process would be carried out again to regularize Venezuelan migrants. It also announced the imposition of visas on Venezuelan citizens, a country with which Trinidad and Tobago had maintained open borders for more than 300 years.

 

The failure to protect the rights of asylum seekers and forced migrants crystallized in the February 5 shooting in the Gulf of Paria, where, according to a statement issued by the Government of Trinidad and Tobago, a canoe packed with migrants repeatedly struck a Coast Guard vessel while ignoring several warnings to stop. Fearing for their lives, the coast guards opened fire. This astonishing claim was endorsed by the government of Trinidad and Tobago, which stated that the Coast Guard had followed protocol and therefore the incident was quickly closed without any credible independent investigation being conducted.

 

 

 

Hostile border policies

Countries, particularly those in the global North, have conspired to strip migrants and asylum seekers of their rights and dignity through an eclectic combination of harsh border and migration policies. These policies take multiple forms, but they all produce the same result: the stigmatization and criminalization of migrants. These countries have managed to do this while constantly asserting their commitment to human rights and to fulfilling their international obligations on international protection.

 

Trinidad and Tobago has become an eager and shrewd disciple, adopting the questionable practices of wealthier states that have acted in bad faith and without significant consequences when enacting policies that undermine the right to protection for migrants and refugees. Indeed, the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Security have repeatedly cited the policies of the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States, Australia, and the European Union as justification for their own treatment of Venezuelan migrants and for the policies and practices adopted so far that provide inadequate protection.

 

In an effort to keep Venezuelan migrants away during the covid-19 pandemic, Trinidad and Tobago instituted strict border closures and labeled all migrants, including those seeking international protection, as undesirable and possible carriers of disease, ordering the immediate detention and deportation of those who breached border rules during the pandemic. This statement by the Minister of National Security during a COVID-19 press conference came only four months after President Donald Trump instituted Title 42 as a way to control the entry of migrants at the U.S. southern border.

 

Maritime securitization

During this same period, the Trinidad and Tobago Coast Guard made a significant investment in its border patrol mechanisms, including the acquisition of vessels and weapons for border patrol. Since then, the Coast Guard has become adept at carrying out interdictions at sea and has shown its willingness to use force to prevent migrants from entering national waters. This constitutes an act of refoulement, which is prohibited under international law. Yet countries such as Trinidad and Tobago are not persuaded to act differently despite the policy advocacy of human rights professionals and activists, because a precedent was set long ago in this area by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the Sale case. The Court determined that the U.S. Coast Guard was not bound by the principle of non-refoulement at a time when its vessels were actively deployed to prevent Haitian migrants from reaching U.S. shores by sea. Many countries, including Italy, Australia, and Canada, have since adopted practices that confirm this ruling with respect to the international protection offered to migrants arriving by sea, with Trinidad and Tobago among the latest in a line of countries to do so.

 

Today, emboldened by the actions of others in the region, migrants arriving in Trinidad and Tobago in search of international protection are detained and subjected to accelerated deportations while being systematically denied legal assistance even when they explicitly request it. This mirrors the actions taken by the U.S. government along its southern border with Mexico and resembles the accelerated expulsion of Haitian citizens from U.S. soil by the U.S. government in September of last year. This kind of operation is dangerous because it creates legal black holes by placing parts of national territory beyond the reach of constitutional, regional, and international law, making it impossible for lawyers and human rights activists to monitor what occurs in military facilities and detention centers where migrants are held before being deported from Trinidad to Venezuela. These deportations often include women and children, who are among the most vulnerable people fleeing the political, economic, and social instability ravaging Venezuela.

 

Beyond the hemisphere, Trinidad and Tobago also took inspiration from European countries, particularly Sweden, France, and Italy, which prosecuted their own citizens and other Europeans for providing assistance to people seeking international protection within their territorial waters or land borders. Trinidad and Tobago's Minister of National Security did not miss the opportunity to threaten legal action and fines against those who provided assistance or services to "illegal migrants," declaring that all persons who helped Venezuelan citizens in an irregular situation would be subject to prosecution for sheltering and aiding such persons. This resulted in numerous immigrants being evicted from their places of residence because landlords feared being sanctioned, thereby worsening their vulnerability as a consequence of the high unemployment rates among this population, themselves a result of the strict enforcement of COVID-19 public health regulations.

 

Politicians, media, and the amplification of xenophobic sentiment

Taking a page directly from nationalist political movements in Europe and North America, local politicians have adopted positions in public discourse that alienate, vilify, and problematize migrants and asylum seekers in Trinidad and Tobago, making it acceptable to blame migrants for problems that long predated their arrival but whose presence supposedly made those problems more visible. Their discourse was reinforced by superficial and sometimes poorly informed media coverage of migration issues, which in itself contributed to the perpetuation of stereotypes and misinformation about the migrant population in Trinidad and Tobago. This, in turn, gave the government the opportunity to diminish the narratives of those seeking protection, discredit their accounts and, therefore, delegitimize their need for international protection in the eyes of the public.

 

This has contributed greatly to public support for justifications offered in favor of denying education to migrant children, even though the birth rate in Trinidad and Tobago has been steadily declining for at least two decades, meaning that not enough children are currently being born to fill the seats in our country's primary schools.

 

It has also reinforced the public perception of Venezuelan migrants as a threat to Trinidad and Tobago's national security, giving us an excuse to ignore the long-standing structural and internal problems that have generated insecurity while blaming migrants and the hypothetical problems that might arise from their presence here.

 

Conclusion

The adoption of these border-control tactics may satisfy the short-term interests of those holding political power, but they may have harmful long-term effects on the development of small island countries such as Trinidad and Tobago in a world where notions of borders are changing and increasingly mobile populations will become the norm, and where, having defended restricting access to human rights and international protection, we may find ourselves in situations in which our own citizens are denied protection for the same reasons used to deny it to Venezuelans and, sadly, we will have no leg to stand on.

 

The denial of due process to those seeking international protection and the refusal of states to fulfill their duties and meet the responsibilities prescribed in treaties, multilateral instruments, or domestic frameworks run contrary to the spirit, principles, and solidarity on which the human rights movement is founded.

 

The lack of strategic litigation on these issues in Trinidad and Tobago means that these practices will become entrenched and remain uncontested in the courts, cementing them as legitimate state actions in defense of borders. Local civil society and diaspora organizations should be supported in taking cases before national courts and, once domestic remedies have been exhausted, in challenging these practices before regional courts, so that we may have an emergency policy grounded in solid legal foundations that holds the state accountable for its actions and guarantees the rights of all, regardless of documentary status.

 

Note: This article is available in English; please click to consult it online or download it.

The Failure of International Protection in Trinidad and Tobago

 

 

 

Note: This article is available in English on the OBMICA website.