| |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12th
November 2011
The
Richard Frederick/US Visa Revocation Controversy
– Part 7
 Before
her 16th September, 2011 shocker, Jeannine Compton-Antoine
had delivered another shocker during the week
of 6th February, 2011 to 12th February, 2011.
In a letter dated 6th February, 2011 to Prime
Minister and Political Leader of the United
Workers’ Party, Stephenson King, the beleaguered
UWP Member for Micoud North had written this:
“After much soul searching, I find myself
in a position where it is necessary for me to
put pen to paper and write this letter to you,
both in your capacity as Prime Minister and
Political Leader of the United Workers’
Party.
“As you are aware, I entered active politics
in October 2007, following the death of my father,
Sir John Compton, in September of that same
year. From the onset, it became obvious to me,
that several persons within the hierarchy of
the party, including some elected members had
no desire to have me as a member of the Party
and by extension a member of the Government.
“From the date of my nomination, at Patience,
Mon Repos in October 2007 to date, there has
been a concerted effort by members of the Party
executive as well as certain elected members,
to undermine me in my capacity as an elected
member of the Party and as Parliamentary Representative
for Micoud North. For the most part, I have
tried my best to ignore it and work to the best
of my abilities for the people of Micoud North
but the fact that Ministers ensure that there
are limited budgetary allocations to the constituency
of Micoud North, that the Parliamentary Representative
is by-passed in most instances and that Ministers
do what they want in the constituency with no
consultation with either the representative
or the village council has made my work extremely
hard.
“Notwithstanding all of this, I have continued
to persevere and will with every breath that
I breathe, work for the benefit of the people
of Micoud North and the people of Saint Lucia.
Frustrating me, victimizing me and slandering
my name and the people who work with me, is
not only affecting me, it affects every man,
woman and child of the constituency. I was elected
by the people to be their voice, to speak on
their behalf; but my voice, even though I scream,
falls on deaf ears and therefore the voice of
thousands is ignored. The people of Micoud North
have been loyal to the UWP but have been kicked
to say the least, only of importance maybe in
an election year.
“I have reached breaking point because
since November 2010, the voice of the people
was blatantly ignored and I speak about the
issue of the Village Council and their decision
pertaining to the rental of the vendors’
arcade in the Village of Micoud.
“As you are aware the Director of Local
Government under directive from the Minister
of Local Government, chose to over-ride the
decision of the Village Council with no consultation
or discussion either with myself or the council.
The vendors have been displaced with no discussion,
the building is being renovated without a plan
or approval from the Village Council or the
Ministry of Planning, there is no lease agreement,
the clerk of the Village Council has been threatened
on two occasions by the gentleman conducting
renovations on the arcade and stop notices issued
by officers from the Ministry of Planning have
been ignored.
“The matter has been reported to the Ministry
of Local Government, Ministry of Planning, the
Police and the Prime Minister on several occasions,
the last being Thursday, 3rd February, 2011
but still nothing has been done. The gentleman’s
activities continue unabated. Therefore, it
shows me that we are willing to promote illegality
and ignore what is right and legal. I cannot
say if this lack of action is out of fear but
it is definitely not out of ignorance.
“I therefore have made a decision to rally
with my people and stand by the decision of
the Micoud Village Council. Due to the continued
disrespect and disregard for myself in my capacity
as Parliamentary Representative, the Micoud
Village Council and the people of Micoud North,
I submit to you my resignation as a member of
the United Workers’ Party.
“I wish you the very best in the future
and have enjoyed working with you. I look forward
to our continued friendship and a productive
relationship in the Parliament of St. Lucia;
however, I must put country first and fight
at all times for what is right.”
Jeannine Compton-Antoine had discovered, in
a perverse twist of irony, some of what the
SLP Members of Parliament had been drawing to
the attention of the electorate – the
shameless pandering by the government to unelected
members of Cabinet by affording them privileges
reserved for elected members! This was no secret,
nor was it brain surgery. This was brutish electioneering
on the part of the UWP Government to ensure
that the UWP candidates for the constituencies
of Micoud North, Laborie, Vieux Fort North,
Vieux Fort South, Soufriere, Castries East and
Castries South had an unfair advantage in the
upcoming general elections by not only inviting
them to all state functions in those constituencies
(while sometimes completely ignoring the elected
members) but also by making sure that they were
associated with State and Taiwanese-funded projects
designated for those constituencies.
Then came the Richard Frederick visa(s) revocation
bombshell in September! Let’s take this
one step at a time, shall we? Fact: Richard
Frederick, the Prime Minister and officials
at the US Embassy in Barbados all confirmed
that the former Housing Minister’s visas
had been revoked. Fact: The exact date of the
revocation remains unknown. Fact: The exact
reason(s) for the revocation remains unknown.
However, after Jeannine Compton-Antoine’s
damning revelation to a HTS news crew and the
Prime Minister making the less-than-reassuring
announcement that he would have Saint Lucia’s
diplomat(s) in Washington get to the bottom
of this troubling matter, a few things emerged
to place the Prime Minister himself at the centre
of the firestorm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In
a statement to the press the following Monday,
here’s what the Prime Minister said: “It
has been brought to my attention that the United
States (US) Embassy in Barbados recently revoked
the diplomatic and resident visas of Housing
Minister Richard Frederick.
“I have received no details or explanation
as to the reasons for the US Embassy’s
decision. I am aware that numerous unproven
allegations have been made against Honourable
Richard Frederick from the time he indicated
a willingness to enter politics.
“I have instructed our diplomatic representatives
in Washington to investigate this highly sensitive
and urgent matter and report back to me at the
soonest. I look forward to meeting with the
media as soon as further information has been
received.”
Let’s clear up a couple of issues before
we proceed. First, according to section 221
(i) of the US Immigration and Nationality Act
(INA), the only people authorized to revoke
a visa are consular officers at US Embassies
and the Secretary of State in Washington, DC.
Here is what the section says: “After
the issuance of a visa or other documentation
to any alien, the consular officer or the Secretary
of State may at any time, in his discretion,
revoke such visa or other documentation. Notice
of such revocation shall be communicated to
the Attorney General, and such revocation shall
invalidate the visa or other documentation from
the date of issuance…” And, “Unless
otherwise instructed by the Department, a consular
officer shall, if practicable, notify the alien
to whom the visa was issued that the visa was
revoked or provisionally revoked. Regardless
of delivery of such notice, once the revocation
has been entered into the Department’s
Consular Lookout And Support System (CLASS),
the visa is no longer to be considered valid
for travel to the United States. The date of
the revocation shall be indicated in CLASS and
on any notice sent to the alien to whom the
visa was issued”. Additionally, the US
State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual
(FAM) outlines some of the circumstances under
which a US visa may be revoked. These circumstances
include, but are not limited to the following:
- The visa holder has been issued an immigrant
visa;
- The visa has been physically removed from
the passport in which it was issued;
- The visa holder is ineligible to enter the
United States for reasons relating to health,
public safety, and national security; or
- The visa holder no longer qualifies for the
visa they were issued.
And, relative to requests by US courts, foreign
courts or governments for release of visa information,
here is what the abovementioned US Foreign Affairs
Manual says: “INA 222(f) allows for discretionary
release of information from, or certified copies
of, visa records by the Secretary of State:
1. In cases where a US court or a foreign court
certifies that documents from a visa record
are necessary in cases pending before the court
involving such visa record;
2. Where release would further the administration
or enforcement of US law; or
3. With regard to information from a visa lookout
database or, if necessary and appropriate, other
visa related records, for use by a foreign government
on the basis of reciprocity, in preventing,
investigating or punishing acts that would constitute
a crime in the United States or, pursuant to
agreement, to deny visas to persons who would
be inadmissible to the United States.”
Interestingly, after the Prime Minister’s
statement in response to Jeannine Compton-Antoine’s
eye-popping revelation, the US Charge d’affaires,
Christopher Sandrolini, in a 22nd September,
2011, letter to the Prime Minister, reminds
him that when Sandrolini visited Saint Lucia
on 20th September, 2011 they had discussed Sandrolini’s
phone call of 5th August, 2011. Said Sandrolini
in his 22nd September, 2011 letter: “In
that phone call, I informed you of the decision
of the U.S. Government to revoke the U.S. visas
of Mr. Richard Frederick, presently the Minister
of Housing in Saint Lucia, and the fact that
Mr. Frederick had been informed of this action
that same day…”
Much has been said and written about whether
the Prime Minister lied about what he knew and
when he knew about Richard Frederick’s
visas revocation. That the Prime Minister didn’t
lie about not knowing the reason or reasons
for his former Housing Ministers visas revocation
is an indisputable fact! I submit, however,
that the Prime Minister lied by act of omission
and commission when he stated: “It has
been brought to my attention that the US Embassy
in Barbados recently revoked the diplomatic
and resident visas of Housing Minister Richard
Frederick”. The Prime Minister made that
statement during the week of the 19th to the
23rd of September. He also made it in a tone
that suggested that he had only recently (maybe
the day before or the week before) been made
aware of the development. We were later informed
that the US Charge d’affaires, Christopher
Sandrolini, informed the Prime Minister by phone
on 5th August, 2011 of the visas revocation.
That the Prime Minister chose to keep the country
in the dark on this very important matter involving
a minister of government for more than six weeks,
in my opinion, constituted a lie. In other words,
omitting to tell the nation something of that
nature and magnitude, was tantamount to “serving
to convey a false impression” or tantamount
to deceiving the nation. Additionally, when
he finally did make the statement that sought
to convey another false impression (the impression
that he had only just been made aware of the
matter), he lied by an act of commission.
Meanwhile, we await the results of the Prime
Minister’s “investigation”
into this matter! The United States INA 222(f)
makes it possible for foreign governments to
request and obtain release of information from,
or certified copies of, visa records. It is
quite instructive to note that the Prime Minister
chose not to say a word on this to the general
public for close to two months after he was
informed by Sandrolini. He was forced to make
a statement only after release of such information
by Jeannine Compton-Antoine. Are we now to believe
that the Prime Minister is interested in uncovering
the reason(s) for the revocation of Richard
Frederick’ s visas? And, even if he did
uncover those reasons, are we to believe that
he would make that knowledge available to the
general public given his past conduct on the
matter?
And, as if to prove that his talk of having
the matter “investigated” was nothing
more than empty rhetoric, the Prime Minister
later informed the nation that one didn’t
need a US visa to contest general elections
or become a government minister when he endorsed
Richard Frederick’s campaign for the Castries
Central seat on a UWP ticket even after Richard
Frederick had resigned from the government on
the basis of the visas revocation!
Next Week: Part 8 – The Richard Frederick/US
Visa Revocation Controversy
Please
comment respectfully and responsibly as we
reserve the right to remove any comment we
consider inappropriate. Refrain from personal
attacks and using any offensive language.
Discuss
Story
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
