My2cents - what law have I broken if I am unverifiable and undocumented? The answer is none. There are only 3 offenses under the immigration act - entering without permission, overstaying and working without a permit. He has been found innocent of the first one, unless they have evidence to charge with him with one of the other two, they must let him go free.
And furthermore, how was the dredging in the Exuma park illegal? What law was broken? It may have been a bad decision, it may have been the wrong decision, but it was not illegal, the necessary discretion was there in the law. Whereas in this case, the government is straight up defying the order of a Supreme Court judge. That is both illegal and unconstitutional. Undermining our democracy and the rule of law in a country already beset with lawlessness and a fundamental lack of respect for the rules. But somehow its Benjamin who means the Bahamas harm? Strange reasoning that.
As always birdie - double standards. If its your party that does it, it is ok that it's illegal, because it is feeding Bahamians. You refer to the Exuma park dredging. You know how many people were hired to do that? Do you know how many Bahamians work on Bell Island now? Well how come it wasn't ok when the FNM allowed that in the name of all THOSE Bahamians who would "just like some bread"? Newsflash, the government breaking the law is NEVER ok, no matter which administration. Your government should be in the business of legitimately finding ways to get people a little bread, not allowing foreign developers to break the law.
But I think it was CAS0027 who was talking about deterrents - absolutely correct. The proper application of the law would ALWAYS have been an effective deterrent. Politicians have always been to scared to do it. That is why Fred Mitchell's "new policy was a load of garbage from day one. Nothing but high profile PR stunt "raids" but the same failure to apply the law properly. People are caught in raids, they are deported, people come back. Entering illegally is a violation of the Immigration Act and therefore, a crime. Lock down our borders, send those who you find en route directly back, prosecute those who have you have a reasonable cause to suspect are here illegally and apply the LAW. From what I can see, all Fred Smith's cases have done is push the government towards they should have been doing in the first place, and that IS a big deterrent to would-be new arrivals. At the same time, it would protect the rights of legal migrants, regularized Haitian-Bahamians, people who "look too Haitian" and everyone else who have been caught up in these unlawful stunt raids. Applying the law would act as a deterrent AND protect the rights of those who don't deserve to be harassed wrongfully.
It wasn't you Cas0072. It was My2cents that claimed there was no constitutional requirement to bring people before a judge within 48. This ruling is simply based on the judges correct reading of the constitution. It did not create a new law, just upheld the one that was there.
My2cents - well, the constitution says that any person detained in connection with any suspected crime shall be brought before the courts "without undue delay" 19(1). It is the Penal Code that defines an undue delay as more than 48 hours. Both have always applied in conjunction. Certainly, detaining people for months and years and/or deporting them without EVER bringing them before a court was always illegal, even before this ruling.
CAS0072 - Indeed the constitution says you can deport people who are found crossing the border or who recently landed. Nothing wrong with that at all. Its when you grab a fella that has been here for years and subject him to summary deportation. That is illegal. He is innocent until proven guilty and is entitled to a host of other rights just like any other suspect.
My2cents - perhaps you should actually read the law. The 48 hour rule is in the constitution and the penal code, and the minister does not have that authority, never has. Doesn't exist in the immigration act or anywhere else.
Voltaire says...
Look out for your own. The motto of every thug, gangster, dictator, oppressor, imperialist that ever lived. Nice Emac. Congratulations.
On Haitian shot by authorities has now been deported
Posted 11 December 2015, 2:57 p.m. Suggest removal
Voltaire says...
My2cents - Boy they will never mistake you for a Haitian. You shoot the messenger and change the narrative like only a true-true Bahamian can.
On Haitian ambassador joins those condemning Munroe’s flogging call
Posted 11 December 2015, 2:40 p.m. Suggest removal
Voltaire says...
My2cents - what law have I broken if I am unverifiable and undocumented? The answer is none. There are only 3 offenses under the immigration act - entering without permission, overstaying and working without a permit. He has been found innocent of the first one, unless they have evidence to charge with him with one of the other two, they must let him go free.
On Demand for release of Haitian man
Posted 4 December 2015, 3:51 p.m. Suggest removal
Voltaire says...
And furthermore, how was the dredging in the Exuma park illegal? What law was broken? It may have been a bad decision, it may have been the wrong decision, but it was not illegal, the necessary discretion was there in the law. Whereas in this case, the government is straight up defying the order of a Supreme Court judge. That is both illegal and unconstitutional. Undermining our democracy and the rule of law in a country already beset with lawlessness and a fundamental lack of respect for the rules. But somehow its Benjamin who means the Bahamas harm? Strange reasoning that.
On Activists warn over Blackbeard’s Cay
Posted 23 November 2015, 2:38 p.m. Suggest removal
Voltaire says...
As always birdie - double standards. If its your party that does it, it is ok that it's illegal, because it is feeding Bahamians. You refer to the Exuma park dredging. You know how many people were hired to do that? Do you know how many Bahamians work on Bell Island now? Well how come it wasn't ok when the FNM allowed that in the name of all THOSE Bahamians who would "just like some bread"? Newsflash, the government breaking the law is NEVER ok, no matter which administration. Your government should be in the business of legitimately finding ways to get people a little bread, not allowing foreign developers to break the law.
On Activists warn over Blackbeard’s Cay
Posted 23 November 2015, 2:36 p.m. Suggest removal
Voltaire says...
Truly spoken birdie - Bell and Minnis both need to go! Would you agree?
On Minnis: Bell must go after criticism of police
Posted 23 November 2015, 2:29 p.m. Suggest removal
Voltaire says...
But I think it was CAS0027 who was talking about deterrents - absolutely correct. The proper application of the law would ALWAYS have been an effective deterrent. Politicians have always been to scared to do it. That is why Fred Mitchell's "new policy was a load of garbage from day one. Nothing but high profile PR stunt "raids" but the same failure to apply the law properly. People are caught in raids, they are deported, people come back. Entering illegally is a violation of the Immigration Act and therefore, a crime. Lock down our borders, send those who you find en route directly back, prosecute those who have you have a reasonable cause to suspect are here illegally and apply the LAW. From what I can see, all Fred Smith's cases have done is push the government towards they should have been doing in the first place, and that IS a big deterrent to would-be new arrivals. At the same time, it would protect the rights of legal migrants, regularized Haitian-Bahamians, people who "look too Haitian" and everyone else who have been caught up in these unlawful stunt raids. Applying the law would act as a deterrent AND protect the rights of those who don't deserve to be harassed wrongfully.
On Immigration activists: Supreme Court ruling a game-changer
Posted 23 November 2015, 2:21 p.m. Suggest removal
Voltaire says...
It wasn't you Cas0072. It was My2cents that claimed there was no constitutional requirement to bring people before a judge within 48. This ruling is simply based on the judges correct reading of the constitution. It did not create a new law, just upheld the one that was there.
On Immigration activists: Supreme Court ruling a game-changer
Posted 23 November 2015, 2:07 p.m. Suggest removal
Voltaire says...
My2cents - well, the constitution says that any person detained in connection with any suspected crime shall be brought before the courts "without undue delay" 19(1). It is the Penal Code that defines an undue delay as more than 48 hours. Both have always applied in conjunction. Certainly, detaining people for months and years and/or deporting them without EVER bringing them before a court was always illegal, even before this ruling.
CAS0072 - Indeed the constitution says you can deport people who are found crossing the border or who recently landed. Nothing wrong with that at all. Its when you grab a fella that has been here for years and subject him to summary deportation. That is illegal. He is innocent until proven guilty and is entitled to a host of other rights just like any other suspect.
On Immigration activists: Supreme Court ruling a game-changer
Posted 23 November 2015, 11:59 a.m. Suggest removal
Voltaire says...
My2cents - perhaps you should actually read the law. The 48 hour rule is in the constitution and the penal code, and the minister does not have that authority, never has. Doesn't exist in the immigration act or anywhere else.
On Immigration activists: Supreme Court ruling a game-changer
Posted 23 November 2015, 9:38 a.m. Suggest removal