Doing nothing is even less effective. The fact that there is possibly no or little evidence of his passionate opposition prior to Fred Mitchell's tenure supports Emacs statements.

If I recall, he asked Daphne Campbell to take back the calls for a boycott which was a reasonable request. She was running off of pure emotion and did not appear to be in a space to speak rationally about this issue. Meeting with her would have been a matter of courtesy, but trying to hold the country hostage to her demands is not the way to go. GBHRA spoke volumes by appearing to align with her statement and making her a friend of the GBHRA.

No one should have to encourage Mr. Smith to apologize. That is the shameful part worth mocking. He should denounce his comments simply for the fact that they were very heinous and not true.

Let's not rewrite events. Sure there is such a thing as moving forward in a less contentious manner, but that is on both sides. Quotes have been attributed to Mr. Smith that have come out of his own mouth, including at the hearing, where I simply would not have recognized the Bahamas if the country's name were excluded from being referenced. That is why I commented previously that it is unfortunate that Mr. Smith is not being held at all accountable for his role in playing with existing tensions. Today Mr. Smith is being conciliatory believing he has scored a victory, but is he even open to rational negotiation? The image that he has put forth in the media makes it appear as if he is more dedicated to the cause of argument than on achieving results. Will he be so level headed when it all does not go his way? Both sides need to adopt a calmer tone. Both sides.

The policies that I am referring to were recently implemented, yet they have been very effective. They weathered the storm of "human rights" criticisms and they went from having 3500 illegal landings per month to zero in less than one year. As far as the illegal immigrant policies go, no illegal immigrant, under any circumstance, can ever be granted status as an Australian citizen. Illegal immigrants are remanded to a detention center and repatriated to their home countries in a reasonable amount of time. If they are deemed suitable for refugee status, they are eligible to apply for a three year emergency visa, after which time they are repatriated if conditions change for them in their home countries. If not, they become eligible for a Safe Haven Visa. This visa is expected to come on stream in April 2015 and the successful applicants must commit to study and/or reside in rural parts of Australia. I believe that this is the way to go because it sends the right message to potential illegal immigrants that there is absolutely no citizenship potential for illegal entry; there is a commitment to repatriate expeditiously; and should they qualify for status, they will at least need to commit to contributing to the development of the Family Islands. Most importantly, no politician can exploit the circumstances of illegal immigrants in exchange for votes.

After reading your heartfelt comment, I feel almost ashamed for running on with the likes of DonAnthony and Voltaire. I truly believe that the deficiencies at the detention center, border control, etc., are all symbolic of the economic hard times that are being experienced in the wider Bahamas. It offends me that some people seem to believe that all discretionary resources should be aimed at providing comfort and support to illegal immigrants when poor and disenfranchised Bahamians are simply out of luck. Anyone who would rather see our country implode economically than engage in fair and necessary negotiation (meaning the give and take that we have come to), clearly has motives that are not in the best interest of this country. We are truly at a crossroads right now, especially in terms of our economy, crime, and what might be confirmation of cronyism within the government. On these issues, the silence from some quarters is indeed deafening, and that includes Fred Smith.

@economist, @donanthony - either way we will wind up granting citizenship or some status to more illegal immigrants than I, and probably many Bahamians, are comfortable with. Mr. Mitchell's motives, whether true or not, will bring this situation to a head which is more than I can say for any other Minister of Foreign Affairs and Immigration. Much has been exposed during this process. Brent Symonette basically said that nothing can be done, which explains why his administration did absolutely nothing. As a result of this experience, no longer can politicians make vague promises to rid the country of illegal immigrants. Only a detailed process and implementation plan that stands the snuff test should suffice, because we would have gone through this ugly process. With the illegal population reported to be anywhere from 20,000 to 100,000, I keep my fingers crossed that we are not too late. If it is not too late, I recommend that the next Minister of Foreign Affairs and Immigration read up on the Australian illegal immigration problem and the very effective solution that they implemented in spite of the "human rights" outcry.

According to an article in the Tribune the improvements were carried out by the BAMSI contractor in 2013. Hence, the improvements were likely done well before November 2014. I personally do not like this belongers permit crap, but I understand that due to our lackadaisical approach in administrations past we do have to give some leeway. However, it is awesome that they cannot vote.

@voltaire - Their concerns are certainly not independent as the issue was brought to them by the GBHRA and are representative of the concerns of the GBHRA and the other organizations that were represented. To date they have not conducted any independent research, and also as their previous communication was not responded to, it was during this hearing that they were directed to a specific individual to which they should address all communication. Otherwise, some of the questions that they asked would not have been questions. All of their concerns will certainly not result in exactly what they suggest. However, I respect the government for hearing them out and attempting to facilitate the requests as far as possible.

It is poor judgement on their part to only look at one side of the issue even when, for example, the GBHRAs incendiary remarks were clearly pointed out. Even if the commission will not hear it, the fact that Smith and so called Haitian Bahamians contribute to increasingly heated dialogue is still a fact. It is absolutely an unfortunate deal if they are willing to only weigh one side of an issue as there are no perfect victim or villains. If they refuse to obtain a true understanding of the nature of the problem and consider the people with whom they align themselves, at the end of the day The Bahamas has to do what is best for the the country.

Ridiculous, how does one prevent attacks? Do tell. In particular how does one muffle comments on the internet, even those by illegal residents, when we have freedom of speech. These are their opinions. With the anonymity of the internet, it could even be claimed that these people are working for Fred Smith, just as you joked but in all seriousness. And unless a specific threat is made on this forum, we will never know. If Anson Aly could get away with a clear threat on tv, comments in the Tribune comments sections should certainly not be at stake.

Also, it is questionable what they deem as attacks via the internet. The so called threat that was printed in the Tribune article was no threat all.