Jamaica hails 'constructive dialogue' as US eases travel advisory
The U.S. State Department said it had reissued the advisory after a periodic review, and now recommended tourists "exercise increased caution."
The prior advisory had recommended citizens reconsider travel, citing violent crime rates. However, the U.S. said that due to crime, government personnel remained prohibited from traveling to many neighborhoods on the island.
The advisory warned of high crime rates and uneven levels of emergency services and hospital care.
Tourism is a key economic driver and provider of jobs across the Caribbean as in Jamaica, where according to government data some 4.75 million visitors last year flocked to its white sand beaches, picturesque waterfalls and rum distilleries - bringing in around $4.35 billion.
This year, the government aims to draw in 5 million tourists and $5 billion.
"Jamaica remains one of the most vibrant and welcoming destinations in the world, and we are pleased that our progress is being recognized," Jamaican Prime Minster Andrew Holness said on social media, hailing the new travel advisory.
"We have maintained open and constructive dialogue with our international partners, including the United States, and this outcome demonstrates the value of that collaboration," Foreign Minister Kamina Johnson Smith added in a statement.
During his visit in March, Rubio had pledged to re-evaluate the advisory as he and Holness announced the launch of joint security programs aimed at combating gang activity, including setting up forensic labs and anti-recruitment initiatives.
Rubio also pledged to engage with local authorities over U.S. accusations that Jamaica, among other Caribbean countries, are engaging in human trafficking by hiring medical personnel from nearby Cuba on a labor export program.
Caribbean leaders reject these accusations and say they engage in fair labor practices.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News
2 hours ago
- Sky News
Bournemouth: The seaside town 'changed' by immigration - where non-British-born population rose nearly 50%
The British seaside town of Bournemouth has a complex relationship with migration. It needs migrants to work in the tourist industry, which is vital for the economy. Some residents say it's always been a multicultural place, but others question if too many people coming here undermines the cultural identity of the town. On Bournemouth seafront, we find that immigration is something that some white British people want to talk about - but not openly, and not on camera. One woman, who knows the town well, said: "Bournemouth has changed because of the migration of people who have come here. The whole atmosphere of the place has changed. "It's strange to hear foreign languages spoken so frequently in our country. To not understand anything that's being said around you is disconcerting," she added. I asked her if it made her uncomfortable, and if so, why? Is it the scale of migration which is bothering her? "Visually, that seems to be the case," she says. "We see what we see. I don't see many white British people." I'm trying to get to the heart of what's troubling her. "It's hard to define. I remember how it was. I remember the community. I'm worrying that our society as Brits is being undermined by the people who are coming in," she says. For decades, Britain has wrestled with the thorny issue of migration - who should be allowed into the country and from where. The change in the demographic of the town is clear. Between the 2011 and 2021 censuses, the non-British-born population in Bournemouth's local authority went up by 47%, and UK net migration has continued to rise significantly since then. Post-Brexit changes Nine years ago - just before Brexit - we visited Bournemouth's Cumberland Hotel. Back then, the staff were mostly EU citizens - many from Eastern Europe. Returning to the hotel, we speak to the manager, Sean Nell. He said: "A lot of our workforce were EU nationals and after Brexit, a lot of them left - they found other work other than hospitality. "A lot of our workforce we're seeing now that we can recruit from is probably South Asia." One of the staff is barman Shardul Tomas, who came to the UK from India in 2022 on a student visa. Whilst studying for his master's degree, he began working at the hotel. "It's good to come here and experience new culture and do what we wish to do in our fields….after Brexit, the Europeans were less, so we were able to get good jobs," he said. 'We are replaced' Nine years ago, Margaret Kubik was the assistant restaurant manager at the Cumberland. We tracked her down and discovered she's now working as a self-employed driving instructor. She said: "When we met nine years ago, we as the Polish people were very much accused of taking the jobs from English people. Now we are replaced by the South Asian people." 'It's not England any more' For some Bournemouth residents, hotels housing asylum seekers have almost become the focal point for wider concerns about migration - as is happening in other towns across the UK. Visiting a protest outside an asylum hotel, we found people are less camera shy than the woman on the seafront - seemingly more comfortable talking about migration among a crowd of like-minded people. In reference to asylum seekers, one protester, shaking her head, told us: "We don't know who these people are. Who are they? It makes you feel like it's not England any more." For a couple of hours, two angry groups face off over their differing views on immigration. But not everyone shares concerns about the impact of migration on the town. Kevin Maidment was born in Bournemouth. I asked if he feels the fabric of the town has changed. Protesters 'need somebody to hate' He said: "No, because it's always been a place where foreign language students visit. "I think this lot down the road, they need somebody to hate… now it's refugees, 10 years ago it was the Poles and the Eastern Europeans," he said. Watching the two groups with opposing views trying to drown each other out is a man called Colin. He lives in a flat between two asylum hotels, a few minutes walk apart. "Personally, the immigrants aren't a problem on the street or anything like that at all," Colin says, referring to those seeking asylum. "But people are fed up with the cost. The cost is a big problem because it's so high." But with more councils vowing to launch legal challenges over the government's use of asylum hotels, the immigration protest movement shows no sign of fizzling out.
Reuters
4 hours ago
- Reuters
US orders amphibious squadron to deploy to southern Caribbean -sources
WASHINGTON, Aug 20 (Reuters) - The United States has ordered an amphibious squadron to the southern Caribbean as part of President Donald Trump's effort to address threats from Latin American drug cartels, two sources briefed on the deployment said on Wednesday. The sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that the USS San Antonio, USS Iowa Jima and USS Fort Lauderdale could arrive off the coast of Venezuela as early as Sunday. The ships are carrying 4,500 service members, including 2,200 Marines, the sources said. The sources declined to detail the specific mission of the squadron. But they have said that recent deployments are aimed at addressing threats to U.S. national security from specially designated "narco-terrorist organizations" in the region. Trump has made cracking down on drug cartels a central goal of his administration, part of a wider effort to limit migration and secure the U.S. southern border. The Trump administration designated Mexico's Sinaloa Cartel and other drug gangs as well as Venezuelan criminal group Tren de Aragua as global terrorist organizations in February, as Trump stepped up immigration enforcement against alleged gang members.
Spectator
4 hours ago
- Spectator
Save our swearing!
Last week I took a day trip to Margate. Not to enjoy a swim in the sea, but in the hope of having a debate with a member of Thanet district council about its proposed ban on swearing. A few days before, when the ban was being discussed, a Labour councillor had challenged me to come to Margate, where he promised to give me a piece of his mind. 'If you'd like to come down here and meet me I'd be more than happy to tell you exactly what I think of you and there might be the odd expletive in it,' he said. Not sure that's the best way to defend a swearing ban, Councillor. I posted a video on the Free Speech Union's social media channels saying I'd be on Margate beach at 10.30 a.m. on Tuesday and looked forward to meeting him. Needless to say, he didn't turn up. I even managed to gain access to the council's offices and went in search of him and Rick Everitt, Thanet's leader, but they were nowhere to be found. Were they working from home? Perhaps they were put off by the two vans I'd hired to follow me around, each displaying a huge billboard advertising the ban. 'Stubbed your toe?' one of them read. 'Remember, it's a crime to swear in Thanet.' Going to these lengths to challenge a swearing ban may seem excessive. Was this something the Free Speech Union should be campaigning on? In fact, we've been at it for some time. The same council tried to ban swearing last year, but withdrew its proposal when we threatened legal action. The issue then was that the ban was too vague and broad, covering not just 'foul and abusive' language – terms which have no legal meaning – but also congregating in groups and misogyny, defined as 'behaviour… that results in a loss of dignity or respect'. We argued it was far from clear what would be covered by the swearing ban – could you be fined £100 for telling someone to bugger off? – and the other provisions risked criminalising peaceful protest. The council backed down, but is having another go. We think there's an important principle at stake. Under sections 59-75 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, councils can introduce Public Space Protection Orders (PSPOs) enabling 'enforcement officers' to fine residents for engaging in supposedly unacceptable behaviour. They were intended to enable councils to tackle prostitution, loitering or drinking alcohol in specific trouble spots, but they have to be carefully drafted so as not to fall foul of the law. According to section 72 of the act, councils must have 'particular regard to the rights of freedom of expression and freedom of assembly' under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, a duty we think Thanet has failed to discharge. At least a dozen councils are abusing this power too and we're not the only ones who think the increasing use of these orders is cause for alarm. In the US State Department's annual report on human rights abuses across the world, published last week, the prevalence of PSPOs was mentioned as one of several 'areas of concern' in the UK. The report singled out the use of these orders to ban protests outside abortion clinics, something J.D. Vance raised at the Munich Security Conference. But there are other examples of overreach, leading to PSPOs being nicknamed 'busybody charters'. Last year, we pointed out to Redbridge council that its ban on cat-calling was unlawful and it agreed not to renew it. Other speech restrictions that have been imposed by PSPOs cover amplification, making noise and shouting. So far, the Free Speech Union has prevailed whenever it has threatened legal action against an overzealous local authority, and we expect to succeed against Thanet. Trying to limit freedom of expression and assembly without interfering in people's convention rights is a piece of needle-threading that is beyond the legal departments of most councils – if they even bother to consult their lawyers. An earlier iteration of Thanet's latest PSPO would have had the effect of banning the consumption of alcohol in licensed premises, which is prohibited by the 2014 act. It's also flat-out insane. Thanet council was effectively going to force every pub in Margate, Ramsgate and Broadstairs to serve nothing but soft drinks. Good luck getting re-elected. I have some sympathy for councils that want to make use of these powers to target specific types of anti-social behaviour and we offered to sit down with Cllr Everitt to help him draft a legally watertight PSPO, but he refused. Like most town-hall tyrants, he knows best. For the sake of his ratepayers, I hope he doesn't waste money trying to fight us in court.
