That is actually a good idea. The journey back would still be ten times safer, and more humane, than the way many of them arrived.

Repatriation is perhaps the best excuse this department can give for going over budget. For the next fiscal year they can increase the budget to cover the prior period deficit and increase the current budget. There is no reason for repatriation to be slowed or stopped.

It is worth putting it off if certain politicians feel that tying in the rights of a relativity new minority when compared to the much longer fight of women for equality, is acceptable. The government procrastinated on Women's rights (like everything else) long before the acronym "LGBT" or the organization was introduced to the Bahamas, or Parliament for that matter. To further postpone some of the long and hard fought rights of women by wrapping it in a carefully worded bill is deceptive and wrong. Oppressing one group, for the benefit of another, is wrong.

While I am all for gay rights, I believe it should stand on its own. Otherwise, it will not stand for long. Legal challenges, if passed, to same sex marriage could hamper, more than progress, the movement. Not to mention that the LGBT movement could possibly lose its greatest ally: women.

Opposers to gay rights, align with age according to most US polls, and I believe that the Bahamas is no different. Bahamians are not homophobic, simply stubborn. A lifetime of being taught what is "right" and "acceptable" even if secretly engaged in said lifestyle, cannot be undone overnight or by passing a bill. It will take time. Therefore, the crafters of this bill should accept that gay marriage may not happen during their tenure, or lifetime, but it will happen!

Mr. Pratt did not make himself clear. However, I looked at immigration requirements for permanent residency, and one qualification is that of a Haitian immigrant with documented proof of residence in the Bahamas since 1985 (or prior), that I was aware. If you read the article, that featured Mr. Pratt, you got the impression that immigration rules were for the most part created on a case by basis, and "long term" residence was undefined-leaving it to the department's discretion. I don't have a lot of confidence that he can effectively relay the new policies to the public because he failed in articulating a very old, and apparently not very well known, one to the public.

I am confident that Emac realizes that it is not about Fred Mitchell, or party politics. Once you have freed your mind of those limiting beliefs, you will realize that there is a greater good in the efforts that oppose illegal immigration. Not only is our economy at stake, but so is our heritage and culture. I, for one, am not willing to concede so easily to those that threaten our existence and rights as native Bahamians. However, if the PLP or others have worked it into your mind that you are not worthy of our beautiful Bahama lands and its potential, I cannot fault you either...it is what it is. But I can always hope and pray that you develop more self esteem (that we are worth it) and common sense. Until then, I will hope for a little sincerity from our politicians; and genuinity, and sense of urgency from our voting public.

Even with laws in place, Mr. William Pratt, acting director of immigration, suggested that the department can allow illegals with documented proof of their decades long crime to become regularized. In light of Mr. Pratt's comments, I believe there has to be oversight and transparency, of this department in addition to legislating the new policies. If not, the ongoing circumvention of laws by illegals and the complicity of officials, will continue to undermine the government's authority and promote illegal immigration.

The issue of a child born to illegal residents, should not be an issue. It would be inhumane to separate parent from child; and I imagine all sorts of international laws would be broken in that case. However, automatically legalizing illegal resident parents should not be an option either. Our citizenship laws were crafted with legal immigration in mind, and not the current situation where the Bahamas is overrun with illegals and their (attempted) anchor babies. If we cave in to this form of manipulation we are upholding the view that illegals have always seemed aware: immigration laws are useless. Such children, by law, can apply for citizenship at eighteen. There is no need to complicate the one issue that is abundantly clear.

It's Pratt who should resign, first and foremost. What does he mean by documentary evidence of being here a long time? Are we leaving our immigration rules to be superseded by irrelevant documents such as a Cable Bahamas statement? He should clarify - the only documents that should matter are passports and permits.

I am not sure how long Pratt has been in his position, but he makes it clear how illegal immigration in the Bahamas got to this point. He should not be leading the department if he believes if he cannot fully enforce its rules or do what needs to be done.

Sounds like they're softening.

He seemed pretty clear on legalizing the woman who is here illegally for 10 years, but married to someone with a permit. This woman should be deported, and made to renter legally as the spouse of the permit holder. Why reward someone for breaking the law, by regularizing them?

And why is there any question on the deportation of the woman in the second scenario? I was not aware of a statute of limitations on illegal immigration. Why is a 'determination' needed when she has clearly broken the law. Once discovered they should be deported, 5, 10, 20 years down the road. It should not matter. If we don't take our laws seriously, deferring instead to 'case by case' assessments, why should anyone?

These comments actually make sense and serve a purpose in the illegal immigration debate. I was relieved that it was not another article filled with drivel that certain politicians have been peddling simply to be seen, heard and popularized among voting Haitians. I hope Minister Mitchell stays the course despite the detractors, including the PM (if he is one).

There is such an agreement. However, I stand corrected, it said anyone born in the Bahamas prior to 1985 is a citizen of the Bahamas, regardless of their parents citizenship status. it does not include their illegal parents. If that exception had to be made, clearly the right by birth to citizenship does not exist for Haitians born in the Bahamas. I first read about this agreement between Haiti and the Bahamas when the minister alluded to it an article in the Jamaican Gleaner, but he or they did not go into detail. I did a little research in order to learn what the agreement included. The resources are conflicting, but there is some type of agreement, it's very easy to find.