Silence? No such luck Economist.

I am not a lawyer, but both you and I know the constitution is debatable, hence the law profession, hence the immigration debate. So I will not maneuver through the constitution for you, but I will point you in the direction within the constitution, and why I agree that the Bahamas is operating within the law. You can arrive at your own conclusions. The fact that law enforcement officials have the right to conduct raids on suspected illegal activity is a given. You quote me the section of law that prohibits that, but chapter 3 paragraph 21, I believe covers this. With regard to the immigration minister having the ability to implement policy, throughout chapter 2. With regard to legal representation, within chapter 3 section 20.

Ok, continue to believe that he is not. Let's see how far Free Smith gets with his attempts to stop it.

Constitutionally, he can implement public policy so yes, he can.

Funny you should talk about emotion, when you seem full of it. I, on the other hand am making points, giving my opinion and stating facts. Which facts have you brought? Where did I say that he said 'all', but neither did he assert that only 'some', should have a clear path to citizenship. I said it was impractical to provide legal representation for all potential illegals. I asserted that children born here would be given citizenship, and Mitchell was making it easier . If you were not implying the government's complicity in intimidating this group, why even mention an unrelated act by private citizens? That is not intimidation. Like Fred Smith they are exercising their freedom of speech in a shocking and deplorable manner.

The minister can also sign of on deportations without court proceedings.

The law does not guarantee legal representation. With it being impractical, my only point to the legality of it was that the minister had the right to sign off on deportations, in lieu of court proceedings. So that does in fact make it legal.

Also, detained or not. They can acquire a lawyer in the same manner as fox hill prisoners, through families and friends. If their sponsors can support to pay an illegal trafficker $1-$5k, they can afford to pay a lawyer.

The means to acquire? They have the means to pay for illegal voyages for friends and family, so surely they have the means to acquire an immigration lawyer.

The sheer numbers that would have to be represented, is not practical. Besides, that the minister can sign off of deportations without court proceedings...next.

When our constitution clearly states that the minister has the right to implement public policy, when our attorney general agrees no laws are being broken, when the minister in the HOA reinforces the facts - enough has been said. Mr. Smith's only leg is to claim insurmountable human rights abuses because he knows that in reality (he is not familiar), no laws are being broken. Also, the department disputed the pregnant woman's claims saying she and fellow inmates barricaded themselves in the dorm. I guess she really wanted have a baby in a country that grossly violates their human rights, considering her time to be freed of it all was near. Must not be that bad, huh?

Unfortunately the only possible consequence is damage to economy if, internationally, he is taken seriously. He is exercising his freedom of speech, no matter how offensive but objects to anyone who is equally offensive exercising their freedom of speech.

I mean Nazi Germany, government sanctioned concentration camps, KKK - why split hairs?

Again, where is the government not adhering to the constitution?