Emac - hahah! Tell me you know the philosopher I chose the name in homage to... you seem like one of the most intelligent and sensible people on this thread. It was the principles which that late individual stood for, not the nationality, that I am seeking to evoke, although I can see how ironic it is in this context. In fairness to your other point, I can see how you would say that I am picking battles. All I can say Emac is that you don't know who I really am; if you did you would know that I have done more than most to give a voice to the innocent young black males to whom you speak. Lets just say that for reasons of my employment up until last week, I haven't ben free to engage in this type of conversation. Now that I am, I jumped in, and this just happened to be the human rights/justice issue that was at the forefront. I am very passionate about police brutality as well, all forms of discrimination. Educational inequality, which is a big problem in this country. The poor in general and young black men in particular....

Girly, I think you should take your own advice - read. Specifically, my comments up until now. I nowhere defended illegal immigrants or anyone else. I am saying it behooves us not to act like animals in tackling our illegal immigration problem. You are correct: there has been a rise in intolerant and bigoted responses to migration in the US and around the world. That don't make it right - quite the opposite in fact. Nevertheless, again I say it - the inhabitants of those states, or any other state in the US, will not be the ones to sink our reputation. Any one who reads, the right things anyway, knows that the first world plays a game of "Do as i say, not as I do" when it comes to judging little countries like us. That is not to mention the damage we do to ourselves on this slippery slope. I wonder, what other parts of the constitution are you people willing to do away with just to have your "revenge" on poor people? It really is quite sickening.

@birdiestrachan - I can't for the life of me understand why Girly and yourself continue to assume that because I don't walk lock-step with everything "Bahamian", I must have some other loyalty? Can that really be how you think? Is it really impossible that your country (and mine) could occasionally be wrong? For the record, what I say about a humane and decent approach to this issue, I have said countless times when it comes to disadvantaged Bahamians, the hundreds in this country who are wrongfully imprisoned and those to whom justice has in some other way been denied. The difference between me and you is that I value all human life equally, regardless of nationality or any other consideration.

Ok Girly... whatever you say. First of all, 17 states are suing. As you know, there are 52. How is that most? And, suing over Obama's law is not the same thing as supporting Mitchell's illegal and immoral policy. I don't even understand the comparison. And, the opinion either way of a handful of right wings states is not what we should be concerned with. When the foreign press and Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch, and the United Nations and the US State Department are finished with us.... well, Im sure we will discuss again when the chickens come home to roost. Its just so avoidable and unnecessary. Im advocating for a sane policy that rids us of all illegal immigrants, you understand that, right? It seems to me that anyone who prefers the current tactics to a sensible and legal policy just wants to see Haitians beat up.

Observer - you are right, nothing is being fixed. certainly not by this new policy. As I said before, this will not result in all Haitians expelled and we all live happily ever after. Get as self-righteous as you like, when this blows up in our faces, remember, you heard it here first. This policy will end in disaster for this country. The world is watching and we are breaking our own laws. For a minute, stop and really think about it. Live up to your username instead of spouting emotionally charged nonsense.

Observer, I will try to respond to all that confusion. 1. The comparative dates of the Constitution and the Immigration Act are irrelevant. Any law that does not conform to the constitution is subject to constitutional challenge and subsequent amendment. It is the supreme law of the land full stop. 2. No one said the Immigration Act is at issue here. The new policy goes well beyond the act. In any case, it is policy, not law. 3. The constitution does not give comfort to a law breaker, but it does set the procedure for determining that someone is a law breaker in the first place. You can't just assume.Everyone in the Bahamas is innocent until proven guilty. So sayeth the supreme law of the land. And, this is precisely the area where the new policy is a problem - it acts as judge, jury and executioner and as such, is a violation of Chapter 3 of the constitution. I do indeed understand the preamble of the constitution,which the country is founded on respect for christian values and the rule of law. The new policy tramples on the rule of law. Simple as. Hope YOU comprehend.

@Observer. YOUR domain? Do you own The Tribune website?

They are spraying chemicals in haitian children's faces and you want to send more children there? All children are innocent, my first instinct would be to protect them from such horrors. I won't ask what Jesus would do, since it upsets you when i do that.

@Observer - true or not, all that is irrelevant. Our constitution demands that we afford rights to each and every individual, regardless of their nationality or status. It does not allow us to bundle people into groups of "them" and treat them accordingly. Right now, the government is the biggest lawbreaker in all this.

Andrewharris - think these comments are bad? Check this - http://www.tribune242.com/news/2014/dec…