lol. I agree.

This story is going in circles. Can we have an independent group get a list of detainees at all Immigration sites (safe houses, detention center, etc.) and check the persons there against this list? There also should be an investigation done on the department. There are too many issues popping up.

I don't gully understand the health visa. You take a test, that you receive the results electronically that you can present at the airport as proof of a negative Covid-19 test, which is what the government needs to see. so, why the need for the health visa. This very test has to be submitted to get an approval. Added to this, you have to show the health visa approval to come into the country. But, you can simply show the negative PCR test. The Ministry of Health can still track you and have you provide the rapid antigen test 5 days after arrival here which you can upload. Clearly something is fishy here.

With regards to health insurance for visitors. Really? So, if someone is sick while here, the health visa will cover what expenses exactly? It's a game for sure.

the second excerpt seems to me contradictory to the first. If I followed the logic employed prior to the recent ruling, it would suggests the language in the first excerpt should be strengthen to state the marriage of the parents. Otherwise, I interpret the second to be a contradiction to the first. How does anyone become a citizen if either parent is in the first but if you are born out of wedlock in the 2nd it's the citizenship of the mother?

I'm not a lawyer. From a layman's point of view it's contradictory unless the language is altered in the first excerpt to add the word "marriage" for the parents.

Tribanon, thanks for the feedback. I don't sign a contract and complain later about the content of the contract. Lol. I agree that changing the Constitution is not something that should be done lightly. I'm not a lawyer, so I would concede that there may be elements that I'm missing here. But, whether a document is written 50 years or 400 years before, it doesn't mean that in the current days context it is still accurate. When Americans speak of the Constitution they try to gauge the intent of the framers at the time, which we do here as well and which I see you are going as well. I respect that. However, the world evolves. Laws are always playing catch up. Although we should not change laws or the Constitution on a whim, we should not take an old document and run with it forever as if it speaks to the world as it exists now. Think of trying to package the information age in the context of the US Constitution.

Further to the above, keep in mind even the courts recognize common law marriage. So, we allow for a long term relationship to be recognized without a formal contact (marriage certificate).

The Constitution is a document written at a specific instant in time. We have to be aware that over time things change. A law that make sense in the 1800s may not make sense in 2021. Yes, we have to be careful that we are not allowing our laws and our Constitution to be trampled on. But, we should ensure that we are not denying someone a right simply because someone put something on a document decades before without taking into consideration certain realities. The situation as I understood was an unwed couple, not a mother who was here illegally. If someone is here illegally we should address that as a matter of immigration policy. But, if both parents have legal standing here (father Bahamian and mother not Bahamian), why should we deny the child a right to be Bahamian? If both were married the citizen would be bestowed on the child. so, essentially we are arguing a legal contract (marriage). There are countries around the world that have a much more open understanding of citizenship. I'm not a proponent of opening the floodgates on citizenship. I just believe that if a person has one Bahamian parent and they live in this country their entire life, they should not be denied the rights that a child born to a married couple has.

If we want to talk history, as you mentioned the Indians had this land. But, there are no Indians anymore. Now, descendants of West Africans (particularly Ghana) and the UK (especially England) decide what the rules are in these Indian lands. So, foreigners to this place are defining what the rules are.

Once again, if someone is here illegally I can understand having a challenge. But, if we are essentially using a marriage certificate between Bahamian man A and foreign woman B as a determinant of the child's status, I think we need to address that situation.

This citizenship situation is a tough one. For all of us not finding ourselves in this situation, as laid out above in that court case, we can not understand the frustration that those who are go through. For me, if a person is born to a Bahamian parent, be it a mother or father in this country, should not have to fight for citizenship. Alienating persons in a society in which they have to live is not something we should push to sustain. There isn't any humanity in this process. Let's try to see life from the perspective of the child born here without certain basic rights.

I agree with Chucky. Going to a grocery store in first world countries is an experience to say the least. It's amazing how we pay so much for 2nd or 3rd rate items.

Wow! The regulator needs to be regulated it seems. Quite sad that in the midst of a pandemic we have to deal with things like this. You can't argue you don't have money while investing heavily in construction.