Editorial | Deportation – a stain on humanity

A frail old man being carried onto a chartered flight at Heathrow Airport to be deported is not the kind of image that a humane society might want the world to see. Yet, this is what happened Thursday when seven Jamaicans were deported to their native country. One of the men, believed to be in his 60s, was in a state of mental confusion, and was described as being too weak to walk on his own.

A total of 90 individuals were earmarked for deportation, but last-minute appeals and legal challenges kept the rest of them off the flight. There is an indication that this was the first of a summer of mass deportations planned by the British government. It is difficult to predict what will happen to these persons but, in the meantime, we cannot ignore the fact that deportation done in this manner casts a stain on the humanity of any country.

Successive governments, particularly of the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada, have employed the deportation strategy to justify the return of thousands of citizens to Jamaica and other parts of the world. These deportation regimes are often using immigration agents to address past criminal behaviour.

JUSTIFYING ACTION

Britain’s Home Secretary Priti Patel, in defending the most recent deportation of Jamaicans, said they had committed appalling crimes, including rape, assault, drug offence and sexual assault, and that she was intent on protecting the victims of their crime and the public.

Presumably, these persons served time in prison and repaid their debt to society for the crimes they committed. But the home secretary seems to be suggesting that a criminal conviction is a trigger for deportation. She knows very well that there will be precious little sympathy for these felons who are being painted as undesirables and menaces to society.

Wouldn’t that be considered double punishment for an individual though? Such a person, having served time, is now being handed a life-altering penalty that may even be worse than being imprisoned. Some persons fear reprisal in Jamaica, others have been away since they were children and are being sent back to a ‘foreign’ country where they have no connections. We ask the question: Is this consistent with British constitutional norms?

There is something very wrong with any system that ultimately fractures the dynamics of family, for it is recognised as an important building block of society. Some of those being considered for deportation from England will be leaving behind children in their pre-teen years, a period when they most need the care and protection of their parents.

First-world countries do understand the importance of keeping families together. They demonstrate this when they go on recruitment blitzes in countries like Jamaica in search of doctors, teachers and nurses, for instance. In order to deal with labour shortages in critical areas such as healthcare and education, the immigration system exercises flexibility in sponsoring these workers and their family members. That is done because they recognise the importance of the family unit.

How then are these same countries taking steps to so mercilessly rip families apart? Anyone who cares about human dignity and social justice should see that there is something wrong with the deportation strategy as it is practised by some countries.