I sure hope immigration is out there stopping them and asking them for their immigration documents...maybe they should start the marathon from the detention centre...

He's scrambling to try to figure out how best he can sugar coat a turd to make it look and smell nice..

Absolutely 100% agree with the fact our laws are archaic and need updating, and every politician for the past 40 years is to blame for not having the cajones to ammend those laws and bring them current. Maybe it is too much like work for them to go down that path...which opens up a whole new can of worms about the great Bahamian work ethic...but I digress...LOL Sadly, we do need a government, neither of the two big ones are worth a crap just now, and none of the small ones are developed enough to take on the task of actually running the country effectively, despite their good intentions. It's a lose lose situation all around. The Bahamas will continue it's downward spiral and we will wallow in our own self made crap until something dramatic happens and a new form and mindset to governance comes to bear.

Not paranoia my friend...the law...I'm not saying the law is necessarily right, it needs to be changed, that is obvious...but you can't just ignore what is written in black and white to suit your needs...that's my argument. Sadly though, until the law is changed, there are laws being broken by the very same people who are meant to be enforcing them. Again...you are neglecting to really digest what that paragraph you so rightly quoted is all about and break it down properly. The problem with it is it's vagueness. Leaves too much room for interpretation. Is the person telling the truth or trying to be deceitful, what is a reasonable time to present your paperwork when the law does not require it to be carried...except for maybe some 'suggestion' in a guideline somewhere (that is not law) that maybe you should. Don't know the banker in question at all, he could be a complete arse and deserve a block check by someone in authority, but if you are going to do these massive road checks, you need the LEGAL authority to do what they are doing, and they do not have that...they are taking liberties and hoping people just think the immigration officer is acting within the boundaries of the law. I have not read every law in this country and don't claim to make myself an expert, but this whole episode, and you even quoting paragraphs really opens ones eyes to just how much the written law can and is ignored and circumvented...ever day, and not just by Immigration officers of course...just saying.

Making the Immigration officer the judge and jury of your truthfulness just leaves the door wide open for abuse...from both sides, the Immigration officer may be having a bad day, and yer screwed no matter what, you could be the smootest talker and most convincing, but lying through your teeth and get by, you could be having a bad day, be a bit grumpy, but telling the truth and get hauled off. If you are going to make it so that the work permit is the be all and end all of proving you are telling the truth, then you have to remove all that crap in there about ("refuses or fails to answer fully and truthfully any question or enquiry lawfully put to him in the course of interrogation under the provisions of paragraph (c) of section 8(1); or (c) gives any answer which he knows or has reasonable cause to believe to be false or misleading to any such question or inquiry") , and change it so t hat it says something like...the Immigration officer cannot decide on his own free will that you are being truthful in your statement, the sole evidence of your being of legal status is your government issued photo ID along with your Work Permit to reside. These documents must be on your person at all times while you move within the country. But until such verbage is used, it leaves the door open to abuse and to the Immigration officers taking liberties and breaking the laws of this country. Putting that spin back on the Citizens and Permanent Resides makes it that much more difficult. Is that just an Immigration Law thing, or does that become more constitutional...I am not too sure.

For Rory and others to comment on.

Let's remove our Swiss banker from the equation here and strip this down to basics. Rory for arguments sake is not a citizen but someone on a work permit, he just came back from a business trip and his work permit is in his passport which is in his briefcase which is at his office. He goes out for lunch and forgets his permit is on his desk and gets pulled over at an immigration stop. He is nicely dressed, and driving the company car. Immigration asked what his status is and Rory very nicely and humbly says he is here on a work permit and he works as one of the top managers at Atlantis. Immigration asks to see the work permit...Rory then realizes that he left it on his desk...again, he very politely informs immigration that he's an idiot, and he forgot it was in his passport sitting on his desk, and apologizes profusely for the slip up. Immigration then very politely ask him to exit his vehicle guide him gently into the waiting bus and escort him out to Carmicheal Road for processing.

I STILL have a problem with the law paragraph that is quoted. You were truthful, you were polite, there was no reason for them to doubt that you were who you said you were, you said you work for Atlantis and you are driving a vehicle registered to Atlantis.

There is no law saying you MUST be carrying your permit on you 100% 24 hours a day...and according to the quoted law, you are given a 'reasonable amount of time' to present your paperwork.

That is where the problem presents itself...maybe the government needs to revise the law, which is no small feat, and reword a few things, but as it stands now, unless they consider 'reasonable amount of time' 2 seconds, they are breaking their own laws.

Flip the coin, let's say I am a citizen, again, there is no law saying I must carry any proof. I get pulled over, politely inform them of my name and say I am a citizen of this country, which is truthful, they decide to haul me away anyways because I have no proof on me. In t hat case they are in DIRECT violation of the law as they cannot touch me or detain me.

It's a very tricky situation, but they need to be careful in that they are not following the letter of the law...they are making up their own little guidelines (which are not laws) as they go along, which are in direct conflict with the law itself.

I'm surprised that people have such a tough time grasping this concept.

You can be irritated and still be truthful...not a hard concept...pretty certain everything he said would be factual...even if he was irritated and pissed off. You are very quick to not touch my other points in the breakdown of the paragraph though...and where in there it says you MUST carry your documents...all it says is you need to present them within a reasonable time...does not say it must be on his person at all times. There is a BIG difference.

OK...cool...let's pull that paragraph apart...very interesting...

(b) refuses or fails to answer fully and truthfully any question or enquiry lawfully put to him in the course of interrogation under the provisions of paragraph (c) of section 8(1);

In this guys case...did he refuse or answer any questions untruthfully...pretty certain he would have answered every question with 100% truth...are you employed...YES...do you have a work permit...YES...do you have your permit on you...NO...that's not a lie, that is being truthful.

or (c) gives any answer which he knows or has reasonable cause to believe to be false or misleading to any such question or inquiry , as aforesaid;

Same again...would any of what he said be false or misleading??

or (d) when required to produce any document under the provisions of section 8(2), refuses or fails to produce within a reasonable time any such document which it is in his power to produce, or, with the intention of misleading any Immigration Officer produces any document which he knows or has reasonable cause to believe to be false or misleading; or (e) otherwise knowingly misleads or attempts to mislead any Immigration Officer acting under the provisions of paragraph (c) of section 8(1) or section 8(2).

Pray tell...what exactly is 'reasonable time...30 seconds? "refuses or fails to produce within a reasonable time any such document which it is in his power to produce"

There is still nowhere in there that says as anyone...citizen, permanent resident, permit holder must carry their papers showing status on them at all times. Give me the paragraph that says it...'Persons on a work permit are required by law to carry their permit and government issued ID on them at all times'...

Where is it?

They should also better define 'reasonable time' in there as well while they are at it.

Not necessarily saying the FNM has a chance, and if they did it would only be after a MAJOR reshuffle and campaign shift...I've voted FNM for years...I would not vote for them in their current state...but, on the same hand, the plp cannot get voted back in to carry on this train wreck of governance. I just hope when the time comes, there is a good viable alternative to the PLP.

Pretty much yeap...but according to the written law, there is no where that says in the actual law saying that permit holders MUST carry their documents...and for that matter, are tourists meant to carry their passports and immigration card everywhere they go...NO...so stop making up unwritten laws to fill a void...make the laws, put them in writing, debate them in the house, that is what we pay you all for. Don't just wing it and assume everything will be cool.