@volatire - These are the comments of private citizens, just like the many comments of so called Haitian Bahamians on the internet have been defamatory and incendiary. Unless the government endorses these comments, your point is moot. And listen to you - if we are begging for tourists we certainly will not be in a position to hire gardeners and the like. Be careful what you wish for.

It was believed that the hearing was to address the IACHR report, so the government was not aware of all the claims. The president clarified the confusion at the start and said the hearing was not simply about that. Mr. Smith went on to gripe about issues that were not contained in the report, or represented a completely new stance. For example, he lauded the government in the local press for the belongers permit, but at the IACHR hearing he condemned it. In the local press, he called for the government to deal with the immigration backlog, but for the benefit of his IACHR performance, he took issue with launching an immigration reserve to help with immigration processing. The population at the detention center is not always constant, but again he takes issue with an immigration reserve to assist in reducing periods of overcrowding and processing time? The alleged threat on social media is hardly a threat, just another person questioning the integrity of the GBHRA. It is apparent that they embellished at every opportunity to paint the picture of a menacing government right down to taking exception to what immigration officers wear.

He also does not want illegal immigrants to be referred to as illegal. If they are not legal residents, what exactly are they? He also believes that the government should ignore any knowledge regarding illegal shanty towns, referring to immigration checks in places known to harbor illegal immigrants as "the targeting of long-standing communities." Long standing, sure. Except they are on land not owned by these individuals, nor did they secure building permits for these structures that do not comply with building codes. The delusional Mr. Smith also raised as an issue, the fact that the government wants to classify it as criminal to aid and abet illegal immigrants. These objections make no sense and I believe the government representative was as surprised as I was to hear some of the claims. What truly is Mr. Smith's goal? It seems to be more than a call for the humane treatment and due process for illegal immigrants, as even when the government works on improving these things, he still finds issues.

A duty to prevent rape, threats, other crimes under local law is and should be imperative enough. Every government is keenly aware of this mandate. However, it was an impractical statement to make as the government cannot predict and/or assure that no criminal action will take place in the detention center or in the country. Due diligence in hiring is always encouraged, but how could they possibly know that the veteran immigration officer would one day turn around and assault somebody?

Consider the context of Mitchell's statement which was in reference to the organized smuggling of people into The Bahamas.

Regarding the embassy officials "threat" - according to the Tribune: "Mr Brown wrote that he intended to use every resource he had to confirm that the Grand Bahama Human Rights Association had made fraudulent claims about their meeting with the members of the United States Senate, and to report the fraud for possible criminal charges." This is not a threat. If he believes that some of the actions bear looking into and reported, that is not a threat.

I watched the exact same hearing, which is why classifying the outcome as a victory is quite puzzling to me. This was not like a criminal case in which the judge or jury are expected to be impartial and weigh the evidence as fairly as possible in order to determine guilt or innocence. The IACHR are advocates and they unquestioningly sided with the complainants who are allegedly also "human rights activists." In fact, there was no evidence to weigh, just allegations, the government's response, more questions and concerns based on the allegations made by the GBHRA. There were no declarations and no conclusions, because they have not yet done their own legwork in spite of repeated invitations to do so. I am personally hard pressed to call it a victory except for the fact that his delivery was much better than Mr. Gomez. However, I recognized inaccuracies and contradictions in Mr. Smith's statement, so no victory as far as content. If one could get past the fact of Mr. Gomez's lifeless presentation (reading a transcript perhaps), the government effectively refuted the claims that were thought to be central to the hearing.

What these people say is not gospel. And they also noted that the hearings concerns, like the report, is prima facie which means essentially that they are taking the GBHRA's word, for now. Ultimately, many of his gripes will not be proven and the only victory Smith would have achieved is providing more evidence that he is an alarmist and a liar.

Speaking of starting at the border, please note that Fred Smith also raised the prospect of immigration reservists as an issue for contention. For anyone who is genuinely interested in protecting our borders, this should be looked at as a good thing.

Also, some of the "stern comments" were mostly questions for which they wanted a response at a later date. However, some were downright impractical. In response to the rape incident, one of the commissioners said that prosecuting the perpetrator was not good enough and that the government should prevent it. Really, The Bahamas government has a way of predicting and preventing crime? We could use that technology out in the wider Bahamas and indeed the world.

The objective of the hearing was to question the government and not the complainants who I believe absolutely deserved to be questioned. I counted three lies in Fred Smith's communication, and I am sure that is not the sum total. Like you, I observed that they had zero time for the government's response and that is unfortunate, as valid points were made. For example, with regard to the alleged threats, Gomez did point out that the threat may have come from a private citizen likely in response to the incendiary comments that Mr. Smith has been making about the Bahamas. The president of the commission responded later that they did not take those remarks into consideration for the report or hearing. To be fair, the IACHR and other "human rights" organizations should at least be cognizant of the antics of the people they choose to align with so that they are not painted with the same brush. Threatening anyone is not right, but no details were provided as to the alleged threat and all the government can do is have the police investigate it. That is, if it is reported.

DonAnthony, examine your conscience. Fred Smith and his group are basically trying to undermine our economy which is unfortunately based on tourism. Should he succeed, this puts us all, legal or not, in a very unfortunate predicament. Forcing us out of the tourism state of mind is not a bad thing, but a sudden bottoming out of our economy is something from which we may not recover for decades, or at all.

Children were not targeted when their parents ran off and left them in November. I feel like we are falling for the propaganda of November 2014 when our immigration officers/ministry were accused of unsubstantiated claims of abusing children. People are bemoaning the fact that the illegal immigrant parents have to get documented to register their children for school, but no one is offering alternatives. Where are the alternatives when we know that illegal immigrants are certainly taking advantage of education and health services. DonAnthony, we may simply have to agree to disagree, as I feel that forcing parents to document themselves is targeting the parents. Believe it or not, children of illegal immigrants are not the only ones to pay a price for the poor decisions that their parents make.

DonAnthony? Anthony is your last name? The fact that you are calling someone out when the internet is a forum in which people can speak freely and anonymously, says much about how much you truly value freedom of speech. I do not agree with SP's tone at all times, but as much as you can gloss over Fred Smith's tearing down of our country as we try to battle the illegal immigration crisis, I too will let some things slide.