The Tribune

EDITOR, The Tribune.

IT is my opinion that we are in a serious national security dilemma as a result of years of unchecked illegal migration coupled with a depressed economy where options are increasingly limited for a large segment of the ‘indigenous’ population where anger, frustration and resentment are mounting.

It would be more than refreshing for the Fourth estate to make clear that most countries in the world do not have birthright citizenship and those that did have moved away from it. Being born in the UK to non-British parents does not make one British, same for Germany, Switzerland and most of the world – including Haiti! Even the US and Canada have growing segments of their society wishing to make this change.

Most countries ascribe to citizenship by blood (jus sanguinis) as opposed to citizenship by birth (jus soli). Jus soli is observed by a minority of the world’s countries and Canada and the US are the only G7 countries to retain birthright citizenship. I think most people would consider Australia, Germany, New Zealand and the US progressive countries yet No European country grants unconditional birthright citizenship. In fact, the realities of the uncontrolled migration has led countries, such as Australia, Dominican Republic, Germany, New Zealand, South Africa, Thailand and the UK. In Barbados and Antigua and Barbuda, there have been statements of the desire to move away from birthright citizenship, especially as it relates to children of illegal immigrants. (Interestingly, in Barbados, the provisions in the Bahamas and UK are seen to be more desirable than automatic birthright citizenship). In Australia, they have moved to Strengthening The test for Australian Citizenship while they move to tighten rules for citizenship.

In fact the UK moved away from birthright citizenship in the 1980s. To become a British citizen by birth you not only had to be born in the UK or a British colony before January 1, 1983 but you must have had the right of abode in the UK i.e. could live and work in the UK without restriction and do not require permission to enter the UK. In fact, Canada is moving to tighten its citizenship rules. Having lived in Canada, concerns about ‘Canadian birth tourism’ are on the rise and generating much public debate about birthright citizenship – a charge being led by a Conservative MP. There have been calls to enact legislation requiring at least one parent to be a Canadian citizen or permanent resident before a child born in Canada is granted automatic citizenship. It is also something that has generated much discussion in the US, although more difficult in the American context given the genesis of the right in their particular context.

I welcome a comprehensive and honest assessment of where we are as a nation in this dilemma. Like what I consider the ‘silent majority’ however, I support a firm stand on illegal migration and do not think it is in the interest of a country geographically located between the poorest and the richest countries in the hemisphere to have either birthright citizenship or continued waves of unregulated immigrants to whom de facto amnesty is granted. If we do that, we change who we tell the world we are and the cold reality is that notwithstanding the bristling of many countries to the recent comments made by the President of the United States as it relates specifically to Haiti, NOT ONE country is or would open their borders to those wishing to flee that country. Another harsh reality is that all of the millions of Haitians in Haiti are not interested in coming to the Bahamas but quite frankly, that matters not when this country is easily overrun in terms of numbers by the population of a small town in Haiti.

I also would like to suggest that the current president of the United States is the most likely of any holding that office to date to act in a way that “punishes” the Bahamas should he consider that we are being too generous with citizenship or that illegal immigrants with a level of melanin are using these islands as a gateway to America. With a mere tweet, we could find that the current benefits we enjoy as Bahamian passport holders are greatly curtailed. The five-year-old niece of my brother-in-law who is from Barbados but is a legal resident of the US could not get a visa to visit him and he routinely tells us that Bahamians do not understand how difficult it is for other Caribbean nationals to access the US and other countries. We take for granted the fact that we have pre-clearance and the ability to travel on a police record to the USA. Perhaps like no other time in our history, this may be under real threat given who occupies the Oval Office. Bahamians of Haitian descent loudly and routinely announce that their intent is not to stay in the Bahamas but to move on to the USA, Canada and other countries. In 2018, the persons in charge of those countries are taking note and acting accordingly to protect their sovereignty. I would have shared with you my shock when a high ranking US official stationed in the Nassau bluntly told me that too many “Haitians and Africans…” have Bahamian passports.

Finally, I do not believe in complaining without offering solutions.

Notwithstanding the desire by some to “open the floodgates” and permit anyone born in this country to be allowed to remain, is no such thing as “citizens in waiting” and if the government was truly concerned about what the majority of Bahamians want, they would move expeditiously to do the following:

1 - amend article 7 of the Constitution to make it clear that the parents must be legally resident, not having breached any immigration or other local law

2- cash bond for all work permit holders – value of the bond to be determined by the average full fare cost of flying to the person’s country of origin and cash returned upon proof that the permit holder has left the country (from immigration at the airport)

3- quotas on work permit holders by country, by category and a maximum period of time for which permits are granted i.e. no longer than five years

4- require evidence of residence for granting and renewing of permits i.e. in an apartment or a home as opposed to illegal communities or ‘in the bush’

5- tiered approach to citizenship – starting with permit to reside with a right to work and after a period of three years of good conduct, eligible for permanent residence and after a period of five years – ability to apply for citizenship if certain criteria is met.

6- ability to revoke legal status if the person engages in any illegal activity, including harbouring or assisting illegal immigration.

I hope that articles on this issue truly include some of the issues raised above. It is, I humbly submitted, in line with the silent majority. The recent US elections are an example and warning of how the pendulum swings in a hard leaning direction when the silent majority feels ignored or unrepresented.

Hope to have further conversations with you and thank you again for your time.

JC, attorney

Nassau,

January 31, 2018.