Turbulence Ahead: The Questionable Logic Behind Saint Lucia’s ICE Deportee Agreement with the US

11 August 2026, another session of Parliament…  “Nothing of importance to be seen there” appears the prevailing attitude of my family and close associates.  But curiosity continues to drag me back, maybe because I like to keep my government accountable and to know what they are doing in my name.  No surprise, I found something that concerned me enough to write about.  Yes!  A statement on the status of an agreement with the neighbour to the north, the United States of America, on the much talked about resettlement of ICE Deportees into third countries.

In presenting his statement to Parliament the Honourable Alva Baptiste summarised his responsibilities as the External Affairs Minister through the acronym ANC – aviate, navigate, and communicate.  While I tend to have little patience for his aviation metaphors, I think this instance to be quite appropriate when referring to the discharge of his role, and the practice of foreign policy.  Let me start by recalling how the terms of this ‘shotgun wedding/agreement’ were explained by the Minister.

Rerouting for Turbulence

According to the Minister, the US intimated that participation in the resettlement programme would appease parties advocating visa restrictions on countries with Citizenship by Investment Programmes (CIPs).  A negotiation that commenced with a thinly veiled threat of consequences if you do not play ball is not really negotiating, but bullying.  Noticeably absent from the Minister’s statement is that there appears to have been no offered guarantee that participation in the programme would exempt Saint Lucia from worsening visa regulations for access to the US.

For reference, our fellow OECS member states of Grenada, Dominica, and Antigua and Barbuda were all negotiating third country resettlement agreements with the US, but that did not prevent the US from imposing prohibitive visa bonds for the issuance of visas for these countries.  Naturally I raise the largely rhetorical question now, of what value is such an assurance from the US?

But let us examine some truths like we did when children watching Sesame Street.  In this case, spot that which is not like the other.  Grenada, Dominica, and Antigua and Barbuda all have CIPs in place and visa free access to the People’s Republic of China.  The same Grenada, Dominica and Antigua and Barbuda are required to place visa bonds for travel to the US despite agreeing to the US resettlement programme.  Saint Lucia has a CIP, but does not have a favourable relationship with the People’s Republic of China.  Much to my disappointment, I think these facts account for why the OECS did not find it prudent to negotiate as a unit with the US on this agreement.  Maybe my carbon-14 score is too high, but I have a certain nostalgic passion for regional collectivism, but alas, the opportunity was yet again avoided.  Nonetheless, we may speculate that the US appears to be punitive towards countries that maintain good ties with the People’s Republic of China, but please remember that correlation may not equal causation.

When 40 ? 40

From the Minister’s statement, the US will send “no more than 10 people per quarter” to Saint Lucia.  That is 40 people per year.  The Minister did not specify the start nor an end date for the agreement, neither was the basis upon which the agreement can, (and should) be terminated clarified.  The US promises not to send “criminals” (apart from offenders of US immigration law) and will provide details (including criminal records) on the individuals where available or legally permissible.  My interest was again piqued; first, what was the guiding legislative basis for the agreement, and second, what information is one not legally permitted to request for immigration purposes?  Continuing; Saint Lucia will be notified 5 days in advance of the people being sent to our country, and Saint Lucia has 2 days within which after receipt to confirm or deny the proposed manifest.  For perspective, the public service rarely answers a telephone, and even correspondence between ministries is at snail pace as the public is routinely served the familiar line “come back tomorrow or next week”.  Given this habitual administrative encumbrance, I am sure you may commiserate with me when I lament the folly of agreeing to a turnaround of 2 days, and even more so on such an august matter.  With the CIP, the vetting process is certainly more rigorous and involved, but will leave further comparative analysis between the CIP and the US resettlement programme at this point for now.

The Minister did not offer any clarification on whether the accompanied individual(s) being relocated to Saint Lucia with the principal deportee will be counted towards the quota of 10 per quarter or not.  So, pending this qualification, and noting that the agreement refers to them in different terminology, it is possible that the accompanied people would not count towards the total number of resettled people (ice deportees).  That being said, the number of people being resettled in Saint Lucia may be more than 40 per year.

The agreement signed is based upon the now established concept of “prior informed consent” (same used for the ‘ship-riders’ agreement’ in the late 1990’s).  If no response is received, the agreement implies that the lack of a response (2 days) may be constructively interpreted to be agreement that Saint Lucia will be obligated to accept the ICE deportee.  I do not think I need to confirm the implicit trust we all place in the US to act honourably and abide by the terms of the agreement, so any and all failures are destined to be ours.

Mayday, Mayday, Mayday

My grandfather, (bless his soul), a long time ago told me that before you go into a meeting, be sure of what you are discussing, know what you want to get out of the meeting and of equal importance, know what the other party expects of you from the meeting.  If we replace my grandfather’s reference to meeting with that of an agreement, something very glaring presents itself.  Saint Lucia went into this negotiation ill-prepared and without a clue.  The MOU was signed in July 2025 as reported to us in Parliament by our Prime Minister.  Back with the aviation terminology; this was the flight plan.  The aviator Foreign Minister knew what was before him.  As an aviator, with a flight plan he would calculate fuel burn and weight, and know how much fuel he would need to accomplish the flight.  Our Foreign Minister is quoted; “The major consideration for Saint Lucia in all this has been the extent to which the United States was committed to financially support the program it had requested of Saint Lucia to undertake taking into account Saint Lucia’s limited resources and circumstances.”  Yet, the Minister continued; “Last week, the cabinet of ministers agreed to a memorandum from the Ministry of External Affairs proposing a comprehensive package of financial requirements by Saint Lucia for implementation of the agreement and this has been submitted to the US embassy in Bridgetown.  We are currently awaiting a response.”  I like to pay close attention to what is said, especially by politicians, lawyers and diplomats.  Yes, it may seem odd to you, as it did to me because this is poor practice to seek renegotiation after you sign the agreement.  One does not set out to fly from point A to point B and check the fuel level to find that the aircraft is practically on empty with a full passenger manifest and a couple of stowaways.

Let us also note the Minister’s words; “Mr Speaker, it should also be noted that under the operating procedures, the United States has also agreed to provide funds to a competent international organization to assist with the services to be provided to individuals transferred under the MOU.”  Also absent from the Minister’s statement is any indication that the US was offering any direct funding to Saint Lucia to care for the resettled ICE deportees.  The Minister and I appear to agree that the competent international organisation referred to is likely the International Organisation for Migration (IOM).  For context, the IOM is an official part of the United Nations system, but it is funded by voluntary contributions and not mandatory assessed dues from UN Member States.  That being said, the voluntary contribution from the US to the IOM could be any amount as the contribution amount is not specified in the agreement.  That is, the US would satisfy its non-binding statement by contributing US$100 or US$100,000 to the IOM.  Specificity matters.  But for clarity, the IOM’s core services include emergency crisis response, facilitated regular migration and visa support, health assessments, voluntary return and reintegration, and migrant protection programs against human trafficking and abuse.  The IOM will not inject needed cash to account for education, health and housing needs for people resettled into Saint Lucia.  Please allow that dream to float off into the air.  I can assume the Ministry of External Affairs knows this as well, so I am lost to what inquiries the Minister confirmed his Ministry is making of the IOM.

To recap, the Saint Lucia’s Ambassador based in Washington DC, the Minister accompanied by his lead advisor, his Permanent Secretary and Saint Lucia’s Attorney General, all flew to Barbados to meet with the Chargé D’Affair of the US Embassy and other technocrats from the US State Department, and based upon the Minister’s statement, they did not present the request for direct funding for Saint Lucia’s participation in the programme during negotiations, or make said negotiations contingent upon agreement for the receipt of said funding.  Again, by the Minister’s own statement, the Memorandum was submitted to Cabinet and sent to the US for consideration last week (first week in August 2026) for which Saint Lucia is currently awaiting a response.

40/annum v CIP

My parliamentary representative made reference to the CIP, and I would have appreciated a more detailed indication that the CIP was considered during these negotiations.  There is no misunderstanding that the US, UK and the EU are openly hostile to regional CIPs without truly valid justifications.  (The US, UK and the EU are among countries that refused to condemn the transatlantic slave trade as the “gravest crime against humanity”).  But I wonder whether allowing violators at least of US immigration law into our country will aid our profile as immigration threats to their countries versus people vetted over months, who financially contribute significant sums to Saint Lucia’s development.  Rationalise this with me.  Saint Lucia is being told in no uncertain terms, ‘end your CIP’, but on the other hand, the US is saying ‘receive at minimum violators of US immigration law’ into your country; 40 per year, which may end up being more than 40 if they are accompanied, and we do not know how long this programme will continue for, or whether there is an established sunset clause within.  Again, there is no guarantee that the signing of the agreement will exempt Saint Lucians of the need to post visa bonds for travel to and through the US.

The reason I am comparing resettled individuals with CIP; is that it is established under the UNHCR framework that “resettlement is designed as a ‘durable solution’ aimed at fully restoring national protection to displaced people.”  That is, people who are formally resettled to a third country, (Saint Lucia), are structurally entitled to pathways for permanent residency and eventually citizenship.  But under the US agreement resettled people make no immediate financial contribution to national development, and are recorded as violators of at least US immigration law.

Should Saint Lucia be required to accept resettled persons who the US finds to be violators of immigration law, would this not tarnish Saint Lucia’s profile and people worthy of visa waiver regimes?  In essence, does participation in the US resettlement programme ultimately work against Saint Lucia in the long and short term and the interest of the people of the country for achieving easier international travel?  At least we can vet over months the CIP applicants, but we have 2 days to do the same for people the US does not want within their borders.

Secondary Screening

Listening carefully to Minister Baptiste, it is clear the US has opted to send persons who are in the US claiming refugee status to third party countries under a convenient redefinition of resettlement.  This resettlement is not voluntary as they are being expelled from the US because they are told they can no longer remain.  Equally their dependent children being encouraged to accompany while being resettled into a third country.

By re-titling the individuals in question as “re-settlers”, the US sought to remove the United Nations High Commission for Refugees’ (UNHCR) legal code from governing the matter being negotiated.  Again, the reality is that the resettlement in third countries appears involuntary and does not prevent them from claiming refugee status upon arrival in Saint Lucia.  Claiming asylum in Saint Lucia re-engages the UNHCR’s legal protections and expectations, but this time placed exclusively upon Saint Lucia, and the US has no third-party legal obligation to honour with direct cash subsidies if the agreement is for resettled individuals for which the US has expressly engaged the IOM, and not the UNHCR to offer third party support.

I look forward to the full text of the agreement with the US being laid before Parliament.  Section 40.1 of the Immigration Act 2023, states that “All regulations made by Cabinet under this Act shall be laid before Parliament at the next ensuing sitting.”  We can credibly assume the authority to sign the agreement came from Cabinet and the Executive, therefore the Immigration Act provisions require the full text of the agreement to be ratified by Parliament before coming into force.  There is the fortunate assumption of an independent parliament enshrined in Section 40.2 of the Immigration Act 2023 that states that “If, within 40 days after the Regulations are laid before Parliament, a resolution is passed by Parliament that the Regulations or any part of them be annulled to the extent set forth in the resolution, the Regulations, or part thereof so annulled shall thenceforth become void and of no effect but without prejudice to the validity of any action in the meantime taken under the Regulations, or part thereof, as the case may be, and a certificate of the Clerk of Parliament as to any of the matters or things specified in this subsection shall be sufficient evidence thereof.”  But we know the reality of the “Ayes” having it remains a constant under our first-past-the-post Westminster Parliamentary system.

Customer rating – 2.5/10

The Minister began his statement to Parliament with the familiar ANC aviation formula; aviate, navigate and communicate.  Yet, in this instance, he appears to have overlooked the most important instruction of all: D for debate.  Under Saint Lucian law, this agreement requires ratification by Parliament; a statement to the House is not a substitute for that process.  In this regard, the esteemed Kenny Anthony in his last term in Parliament is sorely missed.  One can only imagine the pointed lessons he would have offered on constitutional procedure, legal requirements and the failing standards of governance now being displayed by those entrusted with the public’s affairs.

I remain deeply disappointed by how ill-equipped the highly paid, senior team representing Saint Lucia appears to have been in negotiating this agreement with the United States; even if those negotiations took place, metaphorically speaking, at gunpoint, under the threat of visa retaliation should the Government fail to capitulate.  The Minister’s statement provided no clarity on what the programme will cost Saint Lucia, and even less clarity on whether its commencement is contingent upon the United States meeting our request for direct funding.  I certainly want to know what this will be costing us as tax payers when government notoriously confirms the lack of resources even for basic needs.

More troubling still, the statement betrayed a lack of preparedness for negotiations with the United States, an apparent misunderstanding of the role and function of the International Organization for Migration, and, most importantly, the failure to reject the truncated operational timeline for vetting individuals proposed for resettlement.  That timeline, grounded in prior informed consent, effectively made active participation and the independent vetting of proposed resettled individuals optional, rather than an essential safeguard.  In navigating this agreement, the Minister failed to preserve the interests of the Saint Lucian public by accepting unfavourable terms that ultimately risk sullying our country’s profile by further associating us with heightened immigration risks.

If I were writing a customer review for the flight operated by the Minister’s airline, I would award it 2.5 out of 10: two points for showing up, and half a point because it is just sad to award such a low score.  The requests for direct compensation, submitted only after the agreement had been signed, earns no points.  The failure to present the agreement to Parliament in a timely manner, also zero point awarded.  Zero points also for omitting so many matters requiring clarification, and another zero for failing to negotiate as part of a united OECS bloc.

I am therefore left wondering whether I would prefer my Parliamentary Representative in the role of the fictional President of the Republic of Laborie, or as the captain of an aircraft for which he has plainly failed to pass the required type-rating certification.  Either way, the public is entitled to more than a government that merely boards the plane.  It needs representatives capable of navigating the route, communicating the risks, defending the national interests and, when the circumstances demand it, allowing Parliament to debate destinations before take-off.