The Supreme Court routinely releases criminals into society, so that does not say much. They either have criminal records or they don't. If they do, their classification as undesirables or national security risks was warranted.

Rather than support something beneficial for the country at large, including some Haitians, his willingness to sabotage progress makes it clear what is wrong with Martelly telling Haitians in The Bahamas to vote for their best interests or with the formation of a "Haitian Bahamian" party.

Is the fact that one of the men was previously charged with illegal smuggling and escaping custody while in The Bahamas not reason enough for him to be deemed a security risk by Bahamian law enforcement authorities? An internet search using the first, middle,and last names and DOBs for both men supports the MOI's stance. Now, it might be a complete coincidence that men of the same exact names and ages were reported as having been engaged in criminal activities, but were there even any attempts to verify whether or not this was the case? Did any media outlet reach out to the US Embassy to find out if and/or why they refused these men entry? Why would the ministry publicly present a claim that the US (or any of the other countries cited) could also publicly reject? Instead of going on the word of either Fred, or two people who were at least guilty of criminal conduct in The Bahamas, the media should have long ago verified or dispelled whether or not these men have criminal records.

If the issue is the length of their detention, not being tried for the offence of illegal entry, or that Mitchell's resolution was rejected by the board, then it is most certainly the laws that need to be fixed. Laws were followed. No matter how many times and how many ways people twist this fact to state otherwise. I would also like to know why the AGs office failed to defend the decision of the board. Whether attorneys from the AGs office agree with a certain stance or not, that is what they are paid to do. The bottom line is that people are making this about Fred Mitchell because of preexisting dislike for the man. That is very obvious.

Legal action? It is possible for two people to have very different accounts of the exact same event due to personal bias. Is he saying Mitchell outright lied on him, and if so, he should refute the lie directly and and publicly since that is his only recourse. What stood out to me as possibly false, was Fred Mitchell classifying him as a former comedian when he was actually a poet. Or is the truth somewhere in the middle? Michael Pintard is a much better poet than politician. Perhaps he can serve the opposition better through dramatic poetry and soulful laments, because the constant public spats is not doing it.

I guess that's as good a reason as any to welcome even worse into society.

The opposition is pathetic. Their "smoking gun" has been revealed to be no more than a procedural communication to the board, which is a process with which these former government ministers,MPs, and candidates should be familiar. Either they intentionally misrepresented the point of the document to feed hysteria and launch a personal attack on the minister, or they simply didn't know. Sad either way, and it is this undue focus on personality over substance that is behind their unraveling.

In truth, the detainees were not denied due process or held without reason. The constitution holds that illegal entry is a summary offense for which a trial is not necessary and that people guilty of this offense can be detained for however long it takes to deport them. The immigration board also has the authority to decide who is undesirable, and the message of their undesirability was pretty clear. The only trial that they were denied was the one where they should have been made to answer for the alleged escape and arson attempts. The government dropped the ball in not giving them credit for the time they earned in Fox Hill.

Did the opposition ask why their criminal records alone justified their rejections by the US, Cuba, and other countries, and left them ineligible for relocation assistance from the UNHCR? The fact that one previously escaped custody in the Bahamas as far back as 2001 and both attempted to escape and to commit arson speaks for itself. Instead of standing up for criminals who already have a lawyer, one would think that the opposition would be more concerned with the fact that, unlike the US and Cuba, The Bahamas apparently has no laws or treaties to ensure that this country does not become a haven for convicted criminals. With this dangerous precedent, why not do away with the clean criminal record standards for those trying legally to obtain permanent residence or citizenship status?

Michael Pintard must have violent tendencies. When has something even remotely similar happened that he is again citing the potential for violence from average citizens against immigrants? The recent incidents of vigilante justice (at the end of 2015) were meted out to two attempted criminals who I assumed were Bahamian. Since he said nothing of those actual incidents, I am a now pretty certain that those men must have been Bahamian. And why is the opposition not pushing for freedom of information period??

The point is, he made the case where it should have been made, which is in the house in front of the sitting MPs who make up the board. And as the constitution holds, the department of immigration acted in accordance with the board's decision and as the minister, he publicly supported said position. That is his duty. Yes, he could have gone rogue like Leslie Miller and almost everyone in the FNM, but going along with decisions that we may not fully support is a fact of life for everyone. But then again, he is constantly accused of going rogue with regard to immigration laws and this proves otherwise.

Cuba also rejected these men. However, if you are saying that they should have been put on a plane to their country of citizenship, much like the US does, then I agree.