Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by the author(s) do not represent the official position of Barbados TODAY.
By Ralph Jemmott
It has been suggested that the small island of Barbados has too small a population and that since the natural birth rate has not been increasing at any appreciable rate, that we should look to some form of mass migration into Barbados. The figure of some 80,000 persons has been bandied about, but given the way things are now done in this country, no one seems to know where that figure came from. We, the citizens of Barbados, also do not know with any degree of certainty who will comprise the 80,000 ‘New Barbadians,’ where they are likely to come from and over what period of time.
It’s all as usual, hidden in the shadows or in the obscure calculation of some highly paid consultant who in his profound omniscience knows what is best for Barbados and Barbadians. The importation of 80,000 new persons into a 166 square mile land space over a short or moderately extended period into a 290,000 population would have to be considered a mass movement of people. Linear logic or common sense would suggest such.
One of the most often heard imperatives for this ostensibly massive influx of migrants is to be able to buy more. Buy more of what? More imported wide screen TV sets, luxury cars, imported canned foods? What? How much will that produce in terms of net foreign exchange earnings?
Two events over the past two weeks have exposed to Barbadians the possible negative outcomes from poorly conceived migration and investment policies. The first is the issue at Joes River in St Joseph where a foreign investor is building a hotel and in doing so has apparently decided to build a wall that it is felt is likely to exclude the native
people of the area from their accustomed haunts. Unexpectedly, given the supine character of many Barbadians but happily, some locals have staged a protest, and the further construction of the restraining wall has been temporarily halted.
Thinking Barbadians may have to decide what developmental path they want to pursue. Foreign investment is an imperative as we need the foreign exchange, but the sale of this 166 square miles must be compatible with native interests. Much is talked about identity and heritage by persons who appear to lack a real understanding of either or both. The large-scale sale of Barbadian land in perpetuity to foreigners may create all the semblances of the old plantation system with a large black subordinate class surrounding a small white ownership elite. The Owen Arthur notion that land should fetch its highest value was utter nonsense unbecoming of the man.
The other, perhaps more disturbing, story of the past weeks is the tale of four non-nationals, two Jamaicans, a Trinidadian and a Guyanese who were squatting in the highly residential area of Goodland Christ Church. Not only had they used a bob-cat to clear a wooded area and had constructed a two-shanty dwelling, but were using water from the nearby apartment house they once rented but had been unable to keep up the rental payments on. Three of the four non-nationals have now been deported, while the other is awaiting a response to his application for resident status.
The two occurrences mentioned above raise critical concerns related to open, unmanaged or unmanageable migration into Barbados, of which every Barbadian should be aware. It is suggested that Barbados should encourage wealthy migrants, so-called high net-worth individuals, presumably like the Australian owner of the property at St Joseph. Depending on how many come to Barbados, they might choose to survey the land and decide to rob us of our goodly inheritance with the consent of our exalted political leadership.
The other idea seems to be that we should open our borders to all categories of workers. This poses two possibilities, neither of which is for our comfort. The first is mass movement of persons at the lower level could depress wages and drive the Barbadian working class into greater poverty. Even the strongest defendants of migration do not rule out a depressing effect on wages at least in the short term. This must be particularly true of a small country such as Barbados.
The possibility raised by the squatting story is that Barbados, which itself today has its fair share of struggling persons, could be plagued by an influx of foreign ‘scrunters’. Some of these, as in the press story, may be prepared to do anything to settle and earn a living in Barbados.
In some other regional states, there are large expanses of Crown and unsettled land where the practice of squatting is common. In parts of Jamaica, poorer persons are known to attach their houses illegally to the public and private electricity and water supply outlets. The four non-nationals arrested in Barbados seem to have been of this persuasion. This has not been the pattern in Barbados where, until now, squatting and shanty dwellings were not part of the topography. We have an increasing disrespect for law and order. The threat of unmanaged migration offers the prospect of increased delinquency and disorder. We must be wary of new pathologies creeping into our culture.
It is not surprising that one of the most voiced complaints in Barbados today is that native Barbadians are not sure where their country is headed. The new Republic appears to be already losing its way.
Ralph Jemmott is a retired educator and regular contributor on social issues.
