The modern socialist is an evolution of the communist man from the past ...and the current master of implementing capital market initiatives

The modern socialist

One of the legacies of the Grenada Revolution is a strong residue of anti-communist, anti-socialist rhetoric. For the most part, persons who were hurt by, or otherwise disagreed with Grenada’s 1979 to 1983 experiment, continue to dislike or hate those who were involved with the revolution; and, even more, to hate and dislike the ideology itself.

This attitude of hatred remains, even though the Grenada Revolution ended over 30 years ago, the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, and there is no longer a Soviet Union. The haters have either failed or refused to acknowledge the sociopolitical changes around them, and/or the ideological evolution that has occurred since.

I do not agree fully with the philosophy of Francis Fukuyama in his seminal work, “The End of History and the Last Man’’, but, I find this following quotation instructive: “What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War or the passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution and the universalization of western liberal democracy as the final form of human government’’.

In the modern world only China and Cuba can be said to be “communist’’ states. In fact, that may not be a fair characterization of China. Indeed, what we are certain about China is that it is a one-party state and it has mastered the capital economic system. It has recorded historic economic growth and private enterprise flourishes, although the state continues to have control over major economic sectors. There is no doubt that the Chinese have found a model that works and they are now one of the wealthiest and most powerful nations on earth.

Cuba, for its part, is a one-party state as well. In recent times under President Raúl Castro they have tried to make some reforms. However, their hands are largely tied by the wicked, unjust and archaic United States embargo, the same United States that maintains Most Favorable Trade status with China.

Now, for all the leaders in recent times who have practiced socialism, they have maintained western democratic principles. The late great Hugo Chavez, who led the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela during his time, held and won elections fair and square at every turn. His successor won the last election.

Lula de Silva, the former president of Brazil, won elections by the ballot and was able to deliver unprecedented economic growth to Brazil. Moreover, when his constitutional two terms expired there was a groundswell of support to change the constitution for him to continue and contest a third term. He politely declined.

Eva Morales of Bolivia just won a landslide victory for a third term. His economic programs have being lauded by the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. The two financial institutions were initially worried about his elevation as president.

Morales has stood firm against the U.S. attempt to eradicate the coca plant, which is an important economic and traditional plant for the Andean people of Bolivia. He famously once said, “I am not a drug trafficker, I am a coca farmer’’. Despite his disagreement with the U.S. he has continued to deliver for the Bolivian people.

The fact is the modern socialist has become a master of implementing capital market initiatives. I will proffer that where they differ from the Friedman approach to capitalism is that they do not subscribe to the philosophy that market forces will take care of the poor and needy in society. And, thus, they have embarked on serious social programs as safety nets to ensure that the poor and downtrodden in our societies are cared for. They have embarked on, and they have invested a large percentage of their national budgets on education, healthcare, housing and so on.

They have implemented policies where basic needs such as water, electricity and sanitation are addressed by the state directly, thereby ensuring that those who need the services the most are indeed the beneficiaries.

One can recall the Republicans in the U.S. branding President Barack Obama as a socialist for implementing the healthcare initiative commonly referred to as “Obamacare”. Persons seem to forget that the president of France is a socialist; that the British Labour Party is founded on socialist principles; and several countries in Western Europe have implemented – for years – serious socialist policies.

So, I honestly do not understand why persons do not appreciate that the modern socialist is an evolution of the communist man from the past and the current master of implementing capital market initiatives.

The modern socialist, moreover, functions within the world financial systems and, in some cases, also seeks to find alternatives like ALBA. He is not an enemy of the United States either. He may disagree with U.S. policies but he has learned a great deal from the United States and in many instances is jealous of the wealth generated in the United States and the quality of life enjoyed by some its citizens.

Being a socialist no longer means being anti-American or anti-European. It is just a conviction that the capitalist economy can be used to improve the wellbeing of the poor.

 

• Arley Gill is a magistrate and a former Grenada minister of culture.

November 14, 2014

thenassauguardian

Illegal Immigrant Sympathisers and Bahamas Immigration Law

 Politicole: Illegal Immigrant Sympathisers Who Attack Bahamas Immigration Law

By NICOLE BURROWS:
Nassau, The Bahamas:


IT comes as no surprise that the people with the loudest voices, with the most brazen of accusations about The Bahamas’ approach to the management of illegal immigrants and our level of “inhumanity” and “unChristianness” in the country are, in fact, not Bahamian, and/or are not living/have not lived in or near to the end results of illegal immigration in a small country of islands like ours.

Rarely are these big-mouthed voices the voices of Bahamians, particularly the kind of Bahamians who are still struggling in The Bahamas to make decent lives for themselves, so that they don’t also feel the need to illegally inundate someone else’s country.

Illegal immigration sympathisers hit below the belt with insults about our lack of compassion, or lack of Christianity, and it is bewildering.

What is “unChristian” about enforcing our laws – finally? Christians shouldn’t obey laws or follow regulations? What kind of Christianity is that? Even Christianity has its own laws and I don’t think they condone the besieging of a country whose people have welcomed you or at least been tolerant of your needs since you first sought refuge inside its borders.

What is Christian about Haitians threatening Bahamians (on any level), illegally populating their country in droves, and then telling them it’s not enough? How can it be that anyone could expect this to be done to Bahamians and they not feel some type of way about it?

Moreover, how is the welfare of illegal immigrants and their offspring a more humanitarian cause than the welfare of legal citizens of a country and their offspring? Shouldn’t a country get to decide priority for itself? Who is protecting the interest of the legal Bahamian living legally in the Bahamas?

Are we as a country, as a world, so accustomed to being slack and passive that to do what is obedient, to follow the laws of a land actually seems unfair? When did right become wrong?

What if me and 49,999 of my fellow Bahamians, natural-born or naturalised, rolled up into any country in the world, undocumented, and said “let us in”, demanded a right to stay, and to receive medical care, food, education, jobs, economic opportunity, immunity from deportation, all because, you know, immigration is normal and that country should just accept it?

Should we not expect the people born of or patriotic to that country we just illegally bombarded to retaliate?

When you threaten someone’s livelihood and existence, when they’ve fought and worked so hard for the little they have, and easy access is given to others who come through the back door, you should expect to meet the greatest amount of resistance. I know I would expect it; but, then again, I am law-abiding.

And maybe that’s the missing link in the sympathisers’ argument – respect for the rule of law. After all, if you sympathise with what is illegal, it does beg the question of what else you might condone or be involved in that is illegal.

The challenge the Bahamas faces now with illegal immigration is the same one America is facing. I’m neither a Democrat nor a Republican, but it’s hard to miss that members of the GOP, in the persons of Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, are vehemently opposed to Barack Obama’s soft stance on illegal immigrants, as many Bahamians have been for a long time with respect to their own leaders.

All over the internet, in online news and their respective message boards, are countless comments of the American public expressing the same sentiments that a majority of Bahamians do about illegal immigration to our country. “Why do we (America) have to have our borders spreadeagle for all to enter?” “Why is our leader not paying attention to the will of the people?”

If the will of the people is to be ignored, why even have borders and border enforcement? Why have laws? Why have government? Why have national sovereignty, if people from other countries should just flow freely in and out as they like, for whatever reason they feel is important?

What if every country opened its borders to citizens from every other country? You could choose wherever in the world you wanted to live at any given time, for any length of time, never need a passport, and just - bam - go there.

What a world that would be. I wonder if the sympathisers would like that.

And once there, the incoming immigrants could just set up house on any tract of land, including land already owned by others ... maybe even land owned by the sympathisers. Then what?

And what if the immigrants refused to speak to you in your language and used any means necessary to gain ownership of what you’ve worked for? Then what?

Is that what we’re aiming for? If so, what are we waiting on? Just open all borders now, one time, everywhere, and let us have a free-for-all.

No? Because it might be too disorderly?

Well maybe now you’re starting to get the point.

The difference between legal immigration and illegal immigration is that the former is done in an orderly fashion to prevent the chaos that occurs if done in the disorderly, illegal way.

When will the sympathisers get that?

No one is saying there should be no immigration; any person with half a brain can examine the foundations of the developed world and see how the work done by immigrants has helped to create world powers. Everyone has a skill that is useful somewhere, and a purpose to match it.

No one is saying a human being has no right to want to try for a better life in a place where they weren’t born. But there is usually an existing process to accomplish this. And it must be respected. Illegally entering a country, knowing you’re illegal, is blatant disrespect to that country, and it earns no compassion amongst that country’s law-abiding when illegality is your chosen route.

If my Bahamian mother entered and lived illegally in the United States, gave birth to me there, miraculously under the radar, even though I would have been a citizen at birth according to US law (as is not the law of the Bahamas), my mother would not have got a free pass; she wouldn’t have inherited the right to stay in America because I was born a US citizen.

She would have still been illegal, could have still been deported, and, as my primary caretaker, I would have had to go with her until I was old enough to survive on my own in the place where I had citizenship, a choice I would most likely make by the time I was ready for college, at or near the age of 18.

In contrast, with respect to the laws of the Bahamas and its illegal Haitian immigrants, Bahamian citizenship at birth is not an option. And Haitian citizenship/nationality at birth is not elective for Haitian children illegal in the Bahamas ... they’re Haitian children. They take their parents’ nationality. And they should take it with pride. They have a motherland. Why is this confusing?

Why are others – sympathisers and abusers of our Bahamian law – trying to superimpose a law on us that does not exist? Because it suits their own needs/benefits.

If you are illegal in the Bahamas, and you give birth to one child or 14 children in the Bahamas, you and your children are still illegal in the Bahamas. If you find yourself in a quandary at any point in time because of this fact, it’s because of your own choice to drop your babies on Bahamian soil.

You created this problem for yourself, because we have a law which has always been clear: you only have a right to apply for Bahamian citizenship (whether you reside legally or illegally) if you are born in the Bahamas to non-Bahamian parents, and only at the age of 18. That does not mean you stay here until you are 18. And the life you live if you choose to remain is a result of your own doing. You should apply for your children’s passports from your birth country, from the time they are born.

For that matter, there is no one born in the Bahamas without the right to claim any citizenship status at all, ie rendering them “stateless”; they have other citizenship status whether they want it or not. They always have, and they always will, until such time that they renounce it and, legally, take another.

In the latest (November 1) enforcement of new Bahamian immigration law, Haitians especially (some Bahamians and others, additionally) claim the required time frame is too short notice for those illegally in the Bahamas to get the documents required of them to lawfully remain in the Bahamas.

But how can any illegal immigrant fix their mouth to say the new law doesn’t provide enough time for them to get legal citizenship documents? They’ve had 40 years to do it!

And each time they pushed out another baby, they should have gone to their country’s embassy to apply for a passport for the child – that is, of course, if they intended for that child to be a citizen of their own birth country, which is most often not the case.

Regarding Bahamian citizenship rights, the law has always been (since 1973) what it is today and if you did anything counter to it, and still do, you’ve always been illegal. Either you chose not to concern yourself with the law and what it might have required of you, or you knew the law and deliberately chose to go against it. And ignorance nor belligerence are excuses for breaking the law.

With specific regard to illegal Haitian immigration to the Bahamas, and where we find ourselves today, there is much blame to throw around: from the Bahamian government’s historic timidity towards immigration law enforcement/creation, to the Bahamian employers and boat captains who open the gateway for illegal immigrants, to the Haitian government that doesn’t direct the Haitian people to stay at home and build up their country.

But, beyond this blame-throwing, there is one inescapable fact that anyone pleading on behalf of illegal Haitian immigrants cannot deny: there is one place where the problem can be entirely resolved.

If Haiti cared about the problem the Bahamas has endured for decades with nonstop illegal Haitian immigrants, Haiti would have stemmed the problem from within its own borders before it ever became a problem for the Bahamas. Haiti has enough manpower to do that. And if they did this at the root of the illegal immigrants’ departure from Haiti, the Bahamas wouldn’t have the enormous problem with illegal Haitian immigration that it does today.

Considering this reality, that the Haitian government is well-positioned to prevent its own people’s illegal migration to the Bahamas, is it any wonder, then, why Bahamians take issue with their Haitian sisters and brothers who flock here by the hundreds? It’s an awful abuse of a friendly relationship.

In the Bahamas, we have a couple of sayings which describe when a person takes advantage of another, or a situation: “You get too use”, or “you too familiar”, or “you wear out your welcome”.

In the end, no one likes a user or an abuser – especially the abused – even if they do still love them.

• Give feedback and topic suggestions at Tribune242.com, politiCole.com, Facebook.com/NicolePolitiCole, or nicole@politiCole.com.

November 11, 2014

Tribune242

Robert F. Kennedy Centre for Justice and Human Rights (RFK Centre) slams The Bahamas' immigration policies ... and accuses the government of discrimination

Int’l Group Slams New Immigration Laws

By Jones Bahamas:

A U.S. based human rights group over the weekend slammed the country’s recently implemented immigration policies and accused The Bahamas government of discrimination and claimed that the recent raids on immigrants in the country were strictly aimed at those of Haitian descent.

However, officials from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs were quick to respond and shut down these comments from the Robert F. Kennedy Centre for Justice and Human Rights (RFK Centre) calling them “nonsense.”

On Friday the RFK Centre issued a statement on its website regarding the controversial and closely watched immigration exercises and noted that their leaders “express alarm at the discriminatory use of new immigration policies in The Bahamas.”

On Saturday November 1 new immigration policies came into effect that seek to clamp down on all foreigners living and working in the country.

All non-nationals residing in The Bahamas must show evidence that they have permission to live or work in the country.

“According to reports from Bahamian civil society, children born in The Bahamas to migrant parents were given 30 days notice to apply for and secure a passport from the country of origin of their parents or face expulsion, despite the significant financial burdens this new policy imposes and with no consideration for an ordinary processing time of over two months to secure a passport in some cases,” the human rights watchdog said.

“While the government of The Bahamas insists that the measures are not aimed at any national group, Bahamian civil society organisations have related that officials are targeting immigration raids at neighborhoods where the population is predominantly of Haitian descent. The RFK Centre received a report of at least one government-run school that, as of Monday, started to require students to bring their identification with them in order to access the classroom.”

President of the RFK Centre Kerry Kennedy said statehood is a fundamental human right, but added these reports “indicate that the Bahamian government regards it as a tool for discrimination.”

“These new policies mean that thousands of children in The Bahamas now live in fear of arbitrary arrest or deportation,” Mr. Kennedy said. “The Bahamas must immediately fulfill its obligation to protect children-no matter their status, and no matter their ethnicity.”

On November 1, 77 people, including Haitians, Filipinos, Chinese and Jamaicans, were all arrested during that sting operation.

A second operation over the weekend saw nearly 50 more immigrants arrested.

The RFK Centre said based on information it has received, many of those detained in the first operation were forced to remain in custody until the immigration office reopened the following Monday and they could prove their valid status and that many were not provided the opportunity to seek legal counsel, apply for asylum, or appeal their deportation orders.

“The reports coming out of The Bahamas indicate that the government is endangering the human rights of people in immigration detention, including the right to due process and the rights to humane treatment and health,” according to Executive Director of RFK Partners for Human Rights Santiago A. Canton.

“The government must immediately bring its immigration policies and practices in line with its binding international human rights obligations.”

These comments did not sit well with Ministry of Foreign Affairs officials who shot back with a statement of their own on Saturday.

In fact, ministry officials said representatives from the RFK Centre never contacted them for comment on the matter.

“The statement by the RFK Centre over the new immigration policies is replete with errors,” the government statement read. “It is deplorable that a reputable body would repeat such nonsense.

The policy is not discriminatory either in its execution or its effects and there were no massive raids. No raids were conducted by the Department of Immigration at all.

“It is not true that those released had to await the opening of the Immigration Office on Monday. Those are just some examples of a statement that is loose with the truth and defames The Bahamas. The statement is terribly disappointing. There is a rule in Bahamian folk tradition: if you don’t know shut your mouth. If you want to know, just check. This is a completely open and transparent society, with nothing to hide.”

Foreign Affairs officials also responded to claims made in an article that appeared in the Miami Herald on Friday and noted that despite what was published; the Haitian Ambassador to The Bahamas Antonio Rodrigue has not been recalled to Haiti and he has been summoned to the Haitian Foreign Office.

“The Bahamas Minister of Foreign Affairs has spoken to the Haitian ambassador and the truth is that he traveled to Haiti for consultations with the Haitian government, not withdrawn as ambassador to The Bahamas as the Herald’s story suggested,” officials said.

“The Haitian foreign minister and the Bahamian foreign minister are to speak (today) by telephone and may meet in Tokyo next week. The Bahamian ambassador to Haiti attended a meeting with the minister of foreign affairs of Haiti on November 6 and assured him that there was no abuse or inhumane treatment of Haitian nationals in The Bahamas in connection with the enforcement of the new immigration policies.”

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs also noted that when Haitian President Michel Martelly visited The Bahamas on July 28, the prime minister of The Bahamas advised the president of the steps that The Bahamas government would take with regard to immigration matters.

The matters, they said, were similarly discussed between the two foreign ministers of The Bahamas and Haiti at the United Nations General Assembly in September.

November 10, 2014

Jones Bahamas

Resolving Bolivia's claim to the Pacific

By David Roberts



Bolivia's demand that Chile provide it with sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean – a case the International Court of Justice in The Hague is soon to consider – offers the opportunity for the two countries to resolve their over 130-year dispute once and for all.

Bolivia lost its access to the ocean, along with a large chunk of its territory, to Chile in the Pacific War in the 1880s. Chile's argument is that it's an open and shut case – the 1904 peace treaty decided on the definitive and current border between the two and that is internationally recognized as valid. In fact, Santiago has decided to argue that the UN court does not even have jurisdiction to hear the case at all, because recognition of the court by both countries dates back to the 1948 Bogotá Pact, and so the tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear cases that concern matters prior to then.

Bolivia's case, however, does not depend on arguing for the need to change the 1904 treaty. Instead, it is expected to claim that Chile has on several occasions pledged to resolve Bolivia's demand, most notably during a 1975 meeting between Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet and his Bolivian counterpart Hugo Banzer. On that occasion the two agreed in principle to swap two pieces of territory, granting Bolivia a strip of land in the far north of Chile from the coast and along the border with Peru, which also lost a lot of land to its southern neighbor following the Pacific War. The idea never prospered, not least because of objections from Lima.

Bolivia's case is interesting, but as it doesn't actually seem to involve disputing legal documents but amounts more to what appears to be a moral argument – that Chile has some sort of obligation (a legal one?) to negotiate a solution to the issue – it is difficult to see how The Hague court can side with La Paz.

The above, however, begs the question as to whether Chile does indeed have a moral obligation to provide Bolivia with access to the sea. It is certainly easy to be sympathetic to the Bolivians. Losing the ocean drastically changed Bolivia's history, with serious detrimental effects for its economy and development. Not only did it lose access to ports, but the land ceded to Chile turned out to contain some of the largest copper deposits in the world, which have had a major beneficial impact on Chile's economy. Landlocked Bolivia, meanwhile, remains one of the poorest countries in the western hemisphere.

But whatever the outcome of the court case – and it may take years before we have a decision – it is in both countries' interest to resolve the issue. It may be politically unfeasible for Chile to offer a sovereign piece of land to Bolivia, but one possibility – which has also been suggested as a potential solution in parts of the Ukraine and even the Falklands/Malvinas – would be for Bolivia to have technical sovereignty of a small plot with a port, while Chile remains the de facto administrator of the area in terms of legal jurisdiction, political control etc. Another option, which Chile has refused to consider, is to get Peru involved, as that country has made a port area available to Bolivia in the past, although without sovereignty.

As for Chile, there would be obvious advantages for the country if Bolivia were wealthier, with all the trade and investment opportunities that would represent. Ending the dispute would also open the way for Bolivia to export some of its vast reserves of natural gas to Chile, thereby helping alleviate the country's energy shortage and avoiding the need to import liquefied natural gas from as far afield as Trinidad, Qatar and Yemen, among other places, which is patently absurd given the proximity of Bolivia's reserves.

November 03, 2014

BN Americas

Climate change an "existential threat" for the Caribbean

Desmond Brown
(Text & photos)

When it comes to climate change, Prime Minister Ralph Gonsalves of St Vincent and the Grenadines doesn’t mince words. He will tell you that it is a matter of life and death for Small Island Developing States (SIDS).

For St. Vincent’s Prime Minister
Ralph Gonsalves, climate change is a
matter of life and death.

"The threat is not abstract, it is not very distant, it is immediate and it is real," Gonsalves told IPS.

"The country which I have the honor of leading is a disaster-prone country. We need to adapt, strengthen our resilience, to mitigate, we need to reduce risks to human and natural assets resulting from climate change.

"This is an issue however, which we alone cannot address. The world is a small place and we contribute very little to global warming but yet we are on the frontlines of continuing disasters," Gonsalves added.

Since 2001, St. Vincent and the Grenadines has had 14 major weather events, five of which have occurred since 2010. These five weather events have caused losses and damage amounting to more than 600 million dollars, or just about a third of the country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

"Three rain-related events, and in the case of Hurricane Tomas, wind, occurred in 2010; in April 2011 there were landslides and flooding of almost biblical proportions in the northeast of our country; and in December we had on Christmas Eve, a calamitous event," Gonsalves said.

"My Christmas Eve flood was 17.5 percent of GDP and I don’t have the base out of which I can climb easily. More than 10,000 people were directly affected, that is to say more than one tenth of our population.

"In the first half of 2010 and the first half of this year we had drought. Tomas caused loss and damage amounting to 150 million dollars; the April floods of 2011 caused damage and loss amounting to 100 million dollars; and the Christmas Eve weather event caused loss and damage amounting to just over 330 million. If you add those up you get 580 million, you throw in 20 million for the drought and you see a number 600 million dollars and climbing," Gonsalves said.

Over the past several years, and in particular since the 2009 summit of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change in Copenhagen, the United States and other large countries have made a commitment to help small island states deal with the adverse impacts of climate change, and pledged millions of dollars to support adaptation and disaster risk-reduction efforts.

On a recent visit to several Pacific islands, Secretary of State John Kerry reiterated the importance of deepening partnerships with small island nations and others to meet the immediate threats and long-term development challenges posed by climate change.

But Gonsalves noted that despite the generosity of the United States, there is a scarcity of funds for mitigation and adaptation promised by the global community.

Opposition legislator Arnhim Eustace is concerned that people still "do not attach a lot of importance" to climate change.

"When a fellow is struggling because he has no job and can’t get his children to school, don’t try to tell him about climate change, he is not interested in that. His interest is where is my next meal coming from, where my child’s next meal is coming from, and that is why you have to be so careful with how you deal with your fiscal operations," he stated.

Eustace, who is the leader of the opposition New Democratic Party, said people must first be made able to meet their basic needs to that they can open their minds to serious issues like climate change. (Excerpts from IPS)

October 30, 2014

granma.cu

Immigration Policy debate in The Bahamas

Immigration Debate in The Bahamas

Crafting a Firm and Fair Immigration Policy

Former US President Ronald Regan once said that “A nation that cannot its borders is not a nation”. For years, successive governments in this country have failed to adequately control our borders and have failed to effectively address the long standing socio-economic problems stemming from the movement of illegal migrants across our borders. The absence of firm and fair immigration policy has given rise to resentment, anger, hatred, frustration and fear that has, particularly in recent weeks, spilled over in the public domain.

On November 1, this Christie led administration took the first of what will undoubtedly be a series of difficult steps to securing sustainability for future generations of Bahamians.

As a former Minister of Immigration, I understand all too well the challenges associated with this process. Regardless of those challenges however, THE LAWS OF THE BAHAMAS MUST BE CARRIED OUT!

While the Democratic National Alliance commends the government for finally taking seriously its responsibility to protect our borders, this issue cannot – as has been the case with other matters – be allowed to become overly politicized or emotionalized. Instead, a sound and humane approach which does not destroy the dignities of our fellow brothers and sisters –particularly children – should be taken to facilitate immigration reform in this country.

As Bahamians, we can no longer abdicate responsibility for the role successive administrations have played in allowing this matter to grow and intensify. We must not pretend that systemic corruption within the Department of Immigration which has manifested in the sale of passports and travel documents, the bribery of immigration officers, the over-charging of applicants and the general exploitation of the current system, has not also contributed to the critical situation which now exists.

It must be noted that while Haitian migrants continue to make up a large segment of the country’s illegal immigrant population, Haitians should not be the sole target of such efforts. With that in mind the DNA calls for balance on the part of officials as they work to weed out persons of ALL nationalities living and working in The Bahamas illegally. As these efforts continue, the DNA calls for calm from Bahamian citizens and legal residents as immigration officials work to carry out their duties as mandated by law. We should all refrain from making derogatory and/or negative comments about any group of people on social media or any other forum but must work along with the government to ensure the success of these new initiatives.

As part of its push this government must also focus on a bi-partisan approach to formulating a clear and concise immigration policy. A policy which targets not only illegals but those who harbor, aid and abet them as well. As an addition to the current policy changes, the DNA recommends that the government go a step further by enacting legislation which would bring about the swift prosecution to those Bahamians found harboring those here illegally. The law must also hold repercussions for legal residents who also harbor illegals including the possible revocation of their legal status.

During a press conference to be held on Thursday November 6, 2014, The DNA will present its full position on the current immigration policies and future changes to the law as well.

Certainly the failures of former governments are now wreaking havoc on our modern day Bahamas. The many issues resulting from illegal immigration did not occur overnight and will not be solved overnight. It will take a sustained effort on the part of all the relevant authorities and Bahamians across the country. Decisive and Balanced Action must be taken as we work to protect our country for generations of Bahamians to come.

November 03, 2014

Branville McCartney
DNA Leader

The 2010 Bahamas Census records a dramatic increase of the immigrant population in The Islands

Migration report: Immigrants represent 18 percent of population

By TRAVIS CARTWRIGHT-CARROLL
Guardian Staff Reporter
travis@nasguard.com
Nassau, The Bahamas

The total immigrant population in The Bahamas stood at 64,793, representing 18.4 percent of the population up to 2010, according to the Migration Report which was released this month.

The report relies on data contained in the latest census.

“The 2010 Census recorded a total immigrant population of 64,793 persons, of which 29,157 were recent immigrants who migrated to The Bahamas during the intercensal period 2000 to 2010,” the report said.

Of that group, 51,170 people (79 percent) were not born in The Bahamas.

And of the foreign born migrants, 47 percent (24,049) were born in Haiti, 16 percent in the United States, 13 percent in Jamaica and three percent each in Canada and the United Kingdom, the report notes.

Collectively, those countries accounted for 82 percent of the immigrant population.

The International Organization for Migration (IOM) previously estimated that there are between 20,000 and 50,000 Haitians living in The Bahamas. Although the IOM notes the challenges in presenting accurate figures of the number of Haitians who have migrated to The Bahamas as it is difficult to determine those who are “flow through” residents and those who intend to remain in the country.

Multiple officials, including those from the IOM, have identified the country’s close proximity to the United States as a key factor contributing to irregular migration. Migrants often use the country as a transit point.

According to the Migration Report, as it relates to population distribution, of the total immigrant population, 70 percent resided on the island of New Providence, 16 percent on Grand Bahama, seven percent on Abaco; Eleuthera and Exuma shared equal distributions of two percent of the immigrants. The other Family islands accounted for four percent.

As it relates to employment, 55 percent of the immigrants age 15 and over were employed with slightly more than three quarters were employed in the private sector. An additional 12 percent were government employees while 10 percent operated their own business.

“Of the total immigrants 15 years and over, 45 percent of them had completed high school and 31.8 percent had completed college or university, while four percent had no schooling,” the report said.

The 2010 Census recorded a total of 29,157, persons who migrated to The Bahamas during the period 2000 to 2010. Of this number 52.7 percent were females and 43.3 percent were males for a sex ratio of 89.9 males per 100 females, the report said.

Recent immigrants have an average household size of 3.1 persons. Additionally 46.2 percent of the households occupied by these immigrants were one-person households.

The report said 62.5 percent of the immigrants were paying rent, 15.1 percent owned their homes fully, 10.6 percent were paying a mortgage, 10.1 percent were living rent-free and one percent was leasing their homes.

October 31, 2014

thenassauguardian