19 August, 2014

Dear Sir,

Sen Marc Daniels presents a series of self-defeating and circular arguments in his attempt to make a case against the grant of Bermuda status to Permanent Residence Certificate (PRC) holders in today’s newspaper.

First he argues that Parliament can pass laws with retroactive powers. But he goes on to say the proof of this is the law which repealed the Hamilton waterfront contract and left, in his words, Government exposed to potential damages of $150 million. Does he not see that retroactively amending the Immigration Act would expose Government to litigation from hundreds of people entitled to Status under the current legislation? If the waterfront lawsuit is successful, it will prove the very point he is trying to reject — that you cannot pass legislation retroactively without it being successfully challenged in court.

Sen Daniels goes on to argue that the One Bermuda Alliance’s support of the status grants is driven by the desire for votes. He may be right. But he should admit that the PLP’s opposition is driven by the same motivation, except it does not want to see several hundred people added to the register who would likely vote against the PLP. The fact they would likely not vote for the PLP is mainly due to the fact that Sen Daniels’ party has spent 40 years demonising expatriates and diminishing their contributions to Bermuda.

Sen Daniels says Government has refused to say what the optimal number of Bermudians is. This is a meaningless question to which no one knows the answer. However, there are two facts which Sen Daniels should admit. One is that the number of born Bermudians is shrinking along with the birth rate. When the number of working age born Bermudians is taken into account, the shrinkage is even more pronounced. This means that Bermuda has to add more Bermudians unless it wants the Bermudian population to drop. Secondly, the number of people in Bermuda has fallen as a result primarily of the recession. If Bermuda’s economy needs a certain number of residents to thrive, and the evidence suggests it does, and if one way of doing so is by giving more people a sense of security, then this step is the right one. (For an excellent explanation of the PRC issue, readers should go to Kevin Comeau’s www.bdagoodgov.org website. It explains why Government had no choice but to allow the status applications much better than I can.)

Where Sen Daniels is right is in stating that Government has failed to consult or debate the issue widely enough. That debate should now continue. But Sen Daniels and the PLP should know they run the risk of losing the debate provided it is based on facts and does not simply pander to people’s fears over immigration and (sometimes understandable) fear of displacement. If they go that way, they are no better than the Tea Party.

FOR FAIR DEBATE

City of Hamilton