St. Lucia & Third-Country Deportees: The Hard Truth Behind the “Non-Binding” MOU

Choiseul on the Move | A straight-talk breakdown for regular people who don’t have time for diplomatic riddles.

Let’s drop the fairy tales. St. Lucia didn’t “wake up one morning” and decide it wants to be a landing pad for people the United States can’t easily send home. If Cabinet approved an MOU to potentially accept third-country nationals, it’s not because St. Lucians demanded it, and it’s not because we suddenly have extra housing, extra policing, extra courts, extra jobs, and extra social services lying around. It’s because power talks… and small states often move when big states lean.

1) “Non-binding” doesn’t mean “nothing”

The Prime Minister says the arrangement is non-binding and would be handled case-by-case. That sounds soothing. But here’s the hard truth: a “non-binding” MOU is still a signal of cooperation. It’s a foot in the door. Once you signal cooperation to a superpower on migration enforcement, the next thing is usually “fine print,” “operational details,” and “practical expectations.”

Translation: “Non-binding” often means: “We’re not admitting the full cost yet, and we don’t want public backlash before we manage the PR.”

2) The real pressure: leverage, not love

The U.S. is in an aggressive immigration posture. The Caribbean is in a vulnerable position. That’s the equation. When Washington wants partners to help manage deportations/asylum removals, it does not ask like a neighbor borrowing sugar. It negotiates with leverage: visas, security cooperation, aid pathways, diplomatic access, and the invisible “goodwill” that small countries rely on when a crisis hits.

• Visa pressure is real politics. Even the hint of tougher visa conditions spooks governments because it affects travel, family ties, business, and diaspora movement.
• Regional pattern matters. Dominica and others have publicly discussed similar arrangements—meaning St. Lucia is moving with a wider regional tide, not acting alone.
• “Cooperate now” beats “punished later.” Many governments choose pre-emptive compliance so they’re not targeted as “unhelpful.”

3) What’s likely going on in Philip J. Pierre’s mind (without mind-reading)

We can’t claim to know a man’s private thoughts. But we can read incentives like adults. Based on what has been publicly reported, the government is likely trying to balance three fears:

1. Fear #1: U.S. blowback. Becoming “uncooperative” can have consequences—official or unofficial.
2. Fear #2: Domestic backlash. St. Lucians are already anxious about crime, cost of living, jobs, housing, and border control.
3. Fear #3: Regional isolation. If neighbors sign and you refuse, you risk standing alone in negotiations with a superpower.

So the political play becomes: sign a “soft” MOU, calm the public with “non-binding” language, and keep diplomatic doors open. That is not bravery. That is risk management.

4) The foolishness: secrecy + vagueness

The biggest problem isn’t even the concept of an MOU. It’s the information deficit. When people can’t read the agreement, they assume the worst—and honestly, that’s a fair reaction in a world where “frameworks” quietly become “programs.”

Hard truth: If the agreement is harmless, publish it. If it can’t be published, then it’s not harmless.

5) The Choiseul lens: why this matters to us

Choiseul and the south already feel pressure: limited opportunities, youth vulnerability, uneven development, and communities trying to keep peace with thin resources. If St. Lucia ever moves from “MOU talk” to actual transfers, the burden won’t land on boardrooms—it lands on:

• our police and courts,
• our clinics and social services,
• our housing market and already-stressed communities,
• our jobs landscape,
• and our national security posture.

And if anything goes wrong, who pays the price first? Not the press conference crowd. Regular people. Villages. Working families. Youth.

6) What St. Lucians should demand — immediately

Not noise. Not rumor. Clear demands:

• Publish the full MOU and any attachments/side letters.
• Define “third-country national” in plain language and list exclusions (criminal history, gang ties, security flags, etc.).
• State the cap: How many? Over what time? Under what conditions?
• State the money: Who pays for detention, housing, healthcare, deportation logistics, and monitoring?
• State the location and process: Where are people housed? Who supervises? What legal rights exist? What screening occurs?
• Parliamentary debate with a recorded vote—so accountability has names, not fog.

Final word

This MOU looks like St. Lucia trying to stay in the U.S. “good books” in a season of hard immigration politics. But here’s the part leaders must accept: you cannot ask a small nation to carry big-nation problems in secrecy. If the government wants trust, it must earn it with documents, details, and democratic debate—not vibes.

Choiseul on the Move will keep watching. Because when decisions are made “up there,” the impact always reaches “down here.”