So the government of Jamaica's denied asylum to the 37 Haitian migrants who arrived in Jamaica by boat in July last year Yeah, go and use the water. He's yourself just keep it. I'm you. Yeah, star. Only per person. I'm a god. What am I to act for carry on? I need a girlfriend turn to no man. If I talk to feeling sad, I'm the child. You so far. Show me only we go do things. I know about the hug you. Millico did do sense and stand tall me out. Why one success family? Hope everyone is doing all right. If you're new to the channel, welcome and make sure to subscribe to get all our latest videos like this video. So we can continue to drop more contents like this one. All right, so Jamaican government denies asylum to 37 Haitian migrants amid escalating gang violence. A call for a reconsideration and humanitarian action. The 37 migrants are being represented by Malini Elaine, the esteemed founder of human imaginaries human rights group who is poised to launch and appeal against the Jamaican government decision. As a Jamaican myself now residing in the USA, I firmly believe in advocating for acceptance of these migrants given our own global diaspora and the urgent humanitarian circumstances Haitians face right now. The government of Jamaica do they not have the right to decide who comes to the country, who stays in the country? So yes, but remember every decision that any state organ takes must be instriced adherence with the constitution and the rule of law. Malini Elaine responds outlines the paramount importance of adhering to legal frameworks and international obligations in Jamaica's decision regarding asylum seekers. She acknowledged the government's authority to regulate entry but emphasize that such decision must align with constitutional principles rule of law and international legal obligations, particularly in the context of migrant seeking refuge. Her statement reflects a nuance understanding of the delicate balance between national sovereignty and human rights, urging for a holistic approach that respects both security concerns that the Jamaican government is actually saying and the fundamental rights of individuals. Keep hearing about the drugs for guns and things coming from different countries. In Jamaica, we're saying that you know Haitians are coming to Jamaica and there's this concern about drugs for guns but at the same time every decision and every action must be in compliance with the constitution. In addressing Neville Bell's concern about potential involvement of Haitian migrants in illicit activities such as guns for drug trade, a lane showcase or pragmatic approach while acknowledging the complexities of security issues. She advocated for a collaboration between stakeholders to find solution that uphold both security interests and human rights. This no one stands demonstrate a lane's willingness to engage constructively with the Jamaican government while advocating for the protection of asylum seekers rights. Many Jamaicans may not be familiar with the process of seeking asylum and how it works and how a government determines who it will grant asylum. So asylum in Jamaica is governed by a refugee policy, a 2009 refugee policy. When discussing the asylum process in Jamaica, a lane provided insight into legal framework governing refugee protection by referencing the 2009 refugee policy and the prohibition of reforming. She highlighted the legal obligation to provide asylum to those fleeing prosecution. However, her critique of the current asylum procedure citing lack of transparency and accessibility for vulnerable migrants, to which we know are the kids that makes up the 37 refugees, her commitment to ensuring that Jamaica's asylum system upholds international standards of fear and due process. And on what grounds are you filing an appeal of the decision of the Jamaican government to not grant asylum to these 37 Haitians? These are applicants that didn't even have an opportunity to appear before the eligibility committee that was convened to consider their applications. A lane's appeal against the denial of asylum for the 37 refugee is grounded in concerns about procedural irregularities by pointing out flaws such as the absence of an opportunity for applicants to represent their case before the eligibility community and in sufficient reasoning for rejection by the Jamaican government. So she raises valid questions about the integrity of the decision making process. This reflects her dedication to advocating for free treatment and procedural justice for asylum seekers, highlighting the importance of transparency and accountability in the immigration proceedings. So what were they told by the government? What were they told? Why the government is saying you have to go back to Haiti? They took out seven words that the applicant said in an interview and said this was the basis for your asylum application. In response to the Jamaican government's rational 49 asylum based on localized violence in Haiti, a lane offered a compelling rebuttal by citing evidence of escalating violence and humanitarian crisis in Haiti. She challenged the Jamaican government assertion and called for a more collaborative approach to decision making. A lane rejection of unilateral decision making outlines her commitment to dialogue and collaboration in addressing complex humanitarian issues, emphasizing the need for evidence, base and rights respecting policy. I personally love the articulation from Elaine and I and she handled this interview with eloquence and I implore and urge the Jamaican government to accept these asylum seekers, accept these 37 individuals from Haiti because we should be helping them, we should be helping them. Allow me to play devil's advocate but before I do, I hear you mentioning solutions and I do suppose that based on what you've put forward that some of those solutions to this issue will come through the due process to which the Haitians are entitled under international law and we are also neighbors really. But here's a devil's advocate question. Does this not open the door for our open as some kind of potential floodgate? Once we let's say we get to the end of this due process and they are allowed to remain here as refugees then aren't we now opening our shores to flood so to speak of Haitians seeking, a means of escaping their situation? Yes and I understand those concerns and what I always like to do when faced with complex issues is to just go back to first principles. First principles are concepts like dignity and due process and procedural fairness and these are such beautiful words because in the face of complexity we just have to ask ourselves what does the constitution require? Yes granting asylum to a group of people in this context could open up the floodgates as people would want to say but they've done it for other migrant groups. They for Venezuelans fleeing persecution they have established procedures where they can access territory and you know get access to humanitarian assistance. I have never once heard any argument about floodgates when it comes to Venezuelans.