Questioning Jamaica’s readiness to receive third-country nationals (TCN) from the United States, Opposition spokesman on youth and human rights Isat Buchanan says the arrival of 17 Haitians in Port Antonio this week has exposed unresolved questions about the country’s asylum and refugee systems.

Making his contribution to the Sectoral Debate in the House of Representatives on Tuesday, Buchanan argued that the Government’s newly signed agreement with the United States to receive TCNs should have been brought before Parliament for debate, particularly given the legal and human rights issues it raises.

Buchanan, who is also the Member of Parliament (MP) for Portland Eastern pointed to the arrival of 17 Haitian — 10 men, four women, and three children — at Passley Gardens in Port Antonio, Portland, on Monday as a real-time example of the challenges Jamaica could face as it prepares to receive migrants transferred from the United States under the agreement.

“Here is the question we must be able to answer; If we can stand up screening, oversight, and accommodation — funded from Washington — for 25 persons transferred to us every fortnight, with what consistency, what due process, and what plain humanity do we meet the three children who reached Portland in a boat?” Buchanan asked.

“A nation’s character is revealed not in the agreement it signs in a comfortable room, but in how it treats the frightened stranger who arrives unannounced,” he added.

Buchanan’s comments came on the heels of the Government signing a memorandum of understanding with the United States under which Jamaica could receive up to 25 TCNs every two weeks while arrangements are made for their transfer to a final destination.

Government officials have insisted that the agreement contains safeguards, including the right for Jamaica to refuse any individual and provisions allowing either country to terminate the arrangement at short notice.

While acknowledging those safeguards, Buchanan argued that significant questions remain unanswered.

“Those assurances are welcome, and I do not disparage them. But an assurance is a promise, and this House exists to test promises against practice. Who reviews a refusal, and on what criteria? What becomes of a person whom we receive but cannot move on?” he queried.

He also noted that the issue is particularly important because Jamaica does not currently have a clearly defined asylum and refugee framework.

Referring to international assessments of Jamaica’s immigration system, Buchanan argued that the country remains ill-prepared to deal with a steady flow of migrants seeking protection.

“We are, in plain terms, agreeing to a steady transit of foreign nationals into an asylum system our own observers say is not yet ready to receive them. That is no reason to shut our doors upon the world; it is every reason for this House to examine the legal architecture in detail and in advance — before the first arrival, not after,” he urged.

Buchanan also questioned why the agreement was approved by Cabinet and signed without being subjected to parliamentary scrutiny.

Describing it as a “profound step in the life of a small nation”, he argued that lawmakers should have been given the opportunity to debate the policy before its implementation.

He maintained that Jamaica has a responsibility to participate constructively in regional and international migration efforts, but argued that Parliament should first examine the operational guidelines governing the arrangement.

“The Opposition does not oppose Jamaica playing a responsible part in our region. We say only this: Bring the agreement and its operational guidelines to this House; let them be examined; let the safeguards be real, reviewable, and reported upon; and let no policy that touches the liberty of human beings on Jamaican soil be settled by memorandum alone,” Buchanan said.

He argued that the issue goes beyond immigration policy and engages constitutional rights, the rights of children, the capacity of Jamaica’s courts, and the country’s obligations under international law.