By Rev. Pastor Vonnie E James, JP, Public Theologian (Grenada)
Introduction
Immigration policies that restrict entry based on nationality raise profound questions of justice, security, and human dignity. The December 16, 2025, U.S. proclamation limiting entry from Antigua and Barbuda and Dominica, citing national security concerns, warrants scrutiny. This analysis examines empirical data on crime rates among individuals of Antiguan and Dominican origin in the United States compared to U.S.-born citizens, evaluates the security features of these nations’ Citizenship by Investment (CBI) programs, and assesses the ethical, moral, and legitimate grounds for such restrictions. Drawing on criminological research and ethical frameworks, it argues that available evidence does not support blanket nationality-based restrictions.
Crime Rate Comparison: Immigrants from Antigua and Barbuda/Dominica vs. U.S.-Born Citizens
Comprehensive studies consistently demonstrate that immigrants in the United States, including those from Caribbean nations, exhibit lower crime rates than native-born citizens. Nationwide analyses reveal that immigrants are incarcerated at rates significantly below those of U.S.-born individuals (Nowrasteh, 2025; Light et al., 2020). For instance, undocumented immigrants have conviction rates 26–61% lower than native-born Americans for serious crimes like homicide (Nowrasteh, 2024).
Specific data on nationals from Antigua and Barbuda and Dominica are limited due to their small diaspora populations, but aggregated Caribbean immigrant statistics align with broader trends. Caribbean immigrants, as a group, show lower incarceration and conviction rates compared to native-born Americans (American Immigration Council, 2024). No credible studies identify elevated crime rates among Antiguan or Dominican nationals; in contrast, general immigrant populations are 60% less likely to be incarcerated than U.S.-born individuals (Abramitzky et al., 2021).
These findings contradict claims of heightened security risks from these nationalities. Criminological research attributes lower immigrant crime rates to self-selection (motivated, risk-averse migrants), community ties, and deportation fears (Light et al., 2020). Absent evidence of disproportionate criminality among Antiguan or Dominican-origin individuals, nationality-based restrictions lack empirical legitimacy.
Security Features of Antigua and Barbuda and Dominica CBI Programs
Citizenship by Investment programs in Antigua and Barbuda and Dominica incorporate robust due diligence to mitigate security risks. Both require mandatory background checks, including Interpol, World-Check, and third-party vetting by international firms (Investment Migration Council, 2021). Antigua and Barbuda mandates certified documents, police certificates, and fees for enhanced checks (US$7,500–$8,500 for main applicants) (Citizenship by Investment Unit, 2025a). Dominica introduced mandatory interviews in 2024 and multi-layered vetting, with fees of US$7,500 for primary applicants (Citizenship by Investment Unit, Dominica, 2025b).
These processes exceed many standard visa requirements, rejecting applicants with criminal records or suspicious funds (CS Global Partners, 2025). Independent audits affirm their integrity, with rejection rates for high-risk applicants demonstrating proactive risk management (RIF Trust, 2024). Thus, CBI participants from these countries undergo scrutiny that often surpasses that of other visa categories, undermining claims of inherent security threats.
Ethical, Moral, and Legitimate Arguments Against Nationality-Based Restrictions
Nationality-based immigration restrictions raise serious ethical concerns. Philosophically, such policies violate principles of equal moral worth, discriminating on arbitrary grounds of birth rather than individual merit or risk (Carens, 2013). They echo historical exclusions rooted in racial or ethnic prejudice, conflicting with human rights norms (United Nations, 1948).
Morally, blanket bans contradict biblical imperatives to welcome strangers (Leviticus 19:34; Matthew 25:35–40) and principles of hospitality central to Christian ethics. Collective punishment of entire nationalities for hypothetical risks denies individual dignity and presumes guilt by association — a violation of justice (Wellman & Cole, 2011).
Legitimately, restrictions require proportionate, evidence-based justification. Absent data showing higher criminality among Antiguan or Dominican nationals (Nowrasteh, 2025), such measures fail tests of necessity and non-discrimination under international law (United Nations Human Rights Committee, 2019). Robust CBI due diligence further negates security rationales.
Conclusion
Empirical evidence reveals no elevated crime rates among individuals of Antiguan or Dominican origin compared to U.S.-born citizens; indeed, immigrant rates are consistently lower. CBI programs in these nations feature stringent vetting, enhancing rather than compromising security. Ethically, morally, and legitimately, nationality-based restrictions lack justification, risking discrimination and undermining human dignity. Policy should prioritize individual assessment over collective stigma, fostering inclusion consistent with justice and evidence.
References
Abramitzky, R., Ager, P., Boustan, L. P., Cohen, E., & Hansen, C. W. (2021). The effect of immigration restrictions on crime: Evidence from the 1920s quota acts. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series.
American Immigration Council. (2024). Debunking the myth of immigrants and crime. https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/fact-sheet/debunking-myth-immigrants-and-crime/
Carens, J. H. (2013). The ethics of immigration. Oxford University Press.
Citizenship by Investment Unit, Antigua and Barbuda. (2025a). Due diligence requirements. https://cip.gov.ag
Citizenship by Investment Unit, Dominica. (2025b). Enhanced due diligence measures.
CS Global Partners. (2025). Citizenship by investment due diligence. https://csglobalpartners.com
ECLAC. (2024). Economic survey of Latin America and the Caribbean. United Nations.
Investment Migration Council. (2021). Due diligence in residence and citizenship by investment.
Light, M. T., He, J., & Robey, J. P. (2020). Comparing crime rates between undocumented immigrants, legal immigrants, and native-born US citizens in Texas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(51), 32340–32347.
Nowrasteh, A. (2024). Illegal immigrant conviction rates in Texas. Cato Institute.
Nowrasteh, A. (2025). Immigrants have lower lifetime incarceration rates than native-born Americans. Cato Institute.
United Nations. (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development.
United Nations Human Rights Committee. (2019). General comment on freedom of movement.
Wellman, C. H., & Cole, P. (2011). Debating the ethics of immigration: Is there a right to exclude? Oxford University Press.
