By KHRISNA RUSSELL

Deputy Chief Reporter

krussell@tribunemedia.net

FORMER Immigration Minister Fred Mitchell yesterday questioned whether the government’s newly announced limitation on citizenship can be done constitutionally, expressing concern the change could grant a general right for permanent residency “to all and sundry”.

A new round of public debate regarding the immigration landscape in the country was reignited Monday with Immigration Minister Brent Symonette’s announcement at Parliament that people born to foreign parents in the Bahamas, but fail to apply for citizenship by age 19 as allowed by law will only be granted permanent residency with a right to work.

It is one aspect of proposed changes to immigration laws that are excepted in coming weeks.

Noting statute law cannot give right to citizenship that the Constitution does not grant, Progressive Liberal Party Chairman Senator Mitchell further questioned why the government would bring an amendment to law for something it already has the power to do.

He said this would not be a useful way to spend parliamentary time.

“Right now the minister and the immigration board (the Cabinet) can grant citizenship or permanent residence to those people who are in that position without any need for an amendment to the law,” Mr Mitchell said in a press statement yesterday.

“We hope they are not proposing to create a new right which becomes or can become a vested one, because that would be difficult for the PLP to support. We are not sure they can do that constitutionally in any event.

“The statute law cannot give a right to citizenship which the constitution does not grant.

“In cases where people were born in The Bahamas and lived here all their lives and missed the deadline of their 18th birthday and applied for citizenship, the PLP would rely on the general law to grant citizenship to those individuals as a matter of policy.

“In addition, in cases where part of their lives was lived here and part in their home countries, permanent residence was often granted in the first instance until they proved that they had the necessary attachment to the country in order to get citizenship.”

He continued: “We hope that the FNM is not proposing to give a general right to get permanent residence to all and sundry who are born here, leave the country and come back years later claiming permanent residence or a right to citizenship. That would be wrong and therefore difficult to support.

“What the minister ought to do is to ensure that the children of single Bahamian men get the same rights as single Bahamian women. That would be a useful amendment to the citizenship laws and not what they now appear to propose.”

Currently the article seven of the Constitution says: “A person born in the Bahamas after 9th July 1973 neither of whose parents is a citizen of The Bahamas shall be entitled, upon making application on his attaining the age of eighteen years or within twelve months thereafter in such manner as may be prescribed, to be registered as a citizen of The Bahamas.”

The addition of a specific designation like permanent residency for persons who do not apply within that period, would be a new addition to law.

Mr Symonette said issues relating to children born outside of the country to Bahamian women married to foreign men, and children born to single Bahamian men will also need to be addressed.

In the House of Assembly Monday, Mr Symonette insisted the impending amendments to the Immigration Act have nothing to do with any ongoing case in the court, adding the changes are needed largely because the laws have not changed much since 1973, the Bahamas’ year of independence.

He did not mention the ongoing Jean Rony Jean-Charles matter, which is now before the Court of Appeal. However, Mr Jean-Charles’ situation falls into the minister’s description of persons who will not be granted citizenship once the immigration laws are amended.