In a country like The Bahamas that is lax in enforcing its laws against illegal immigration, it is easy to see how this issue has spiraled out of control... ...In addition to enforcing its laws regarding deportation, the government must also implement more stern penalties to discourage Bahamians from hiring illegal immigrants

The immigration fiasco pt. 2

By By Arinthia S. Komolafe

The Latin phrase “Vox Populi, vox dei” when translated to English means that “the voice of the people is the voice of God”.  This phrase is commonly attributed to voting and was most notably used by Sir Lynden Pindling after conceding the Progressive Liberal Party’s defeat of the 1992 general election. Today, the same holds true; however, Bahamians ought to realize that their voices carry power not only during election time every five years, but at all times.  We must continue to discuss and encourage dialogue on matters of national interest in an attempt to influence and shape policy decisions.  Issues such as crime, education, healthcare, the diversification of our economy and immigration certainly stand out among others.

In my previous article, we explored the possible implementation of an amnesty program.  The merits of an amnesty program provide an incentive for undocumented immigrants to regularize their status, obtain temporary residence/work status or face immediate deportation in accordance with applicable Bahamian laws.  Further, once it is determined which individuals arrived in the country after a particular date, the government must make haste to deport such individuals back to their home countries immediately.  The primary obligation of any government is to protect its citizens and foster an environment in which its people can prosper.  It is imperative, therefore, for the government to make every effort to ascertain the number of illegal immigrants in the country, the skill-set of these individuals and how best they can contribute to the society.

Immigration, policy and the economy

An effective immigration policy in The Bahamas would be tied into the government’s education, investment and economic policies.  It is widely known that while Haitians are not the only demographic of individuals who constitute the illegal immigration population in The Bahamas, they make up the vast majority.  It is estimated that approximately 66 percent of Haitians in the Republic of Haiti work in the agriculture sector.  They are particularly engaged in subsistence farming, which contributes to about one third of Haiti’s gross domestic product.  During a hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 2010, former United States President Bill Clinton expressed his regret of having oversight of trade policies that caused the demise of Haiti’s rice farming during his term in office.  In what he termed a “devil’s bargain”, the U.S. forced Haiti to reduce tariffs on imported subsidized U.S. rice.  The demise of rice farming in Haiti has been attributed to the aforesaid policy and arguably hindered Haiti’s ability to become self-sufficient.  There is no doubt that this policy has also had a direct and negative impact on The Bahamas and other developing countries within the region that are not self-sufficient today.  Indirectly, it can be argued that this policy also contributed to the increased migration of Haitian nationals to The Bahamas in search of economic security.

Bahamians understanding the fragility of the cyclical tourism and financial services industries have been advocating for years that the government provide more incentives for the development of the agricultural sector in an attempt to expand the industry and diversify our economy.  An expansion of the agricultural sector can provide thousands of jobs and move us toward self-sufficiency and some form of food security.  However, the widely held perception is that Bahamians are unlikely to engage in agriculture on a grand scale.  While that may or may not be true, what is clear is that we can utilize the skills of Haitian migrants present in the country to develop the agriculture industry.  If two out of three Haitians are engaged in farming, it follows then that this expertise should be in The Bahamas.  A thriving agriculture industry can reduce our balance of trade deficit by reducing food imports and creating greater opportunities for exports.

Granting temporary work permits under a properly planned amnesty program for illegal immigrants can to a great extent ease the burden these individuals place on the public purse.  This no doubt currently drains our resources in areas such as education and healthcare without a substantial contribution to the Bahamian economy.  It is well-known that immigrants remit most of their funds to their home countries to assist their families back at home.  As a result, very little of what is made by the immigrant worker is spent within the Bahamian economy.  The implementation of a value-added or sales tax would assist in an immigrant worker’s contribution to government revenue in addition to work permit fees and national insurance contributions.

Added resources

It would be an understatement to remark that Bahamian employers play a major role in the illegal immigration problem that exists in the country today.  Driven by the need to pay reduced wages to maximize profits and minimize expenses, many are inclined to hire an immigrant lacking the necessary documentation to engage in gainful occupation.  Economic immigrants usually weigh the cost of traveling to a country and being able to find work against being apprehended by the authorities. In a country like The Bahamas that is lax in enforcing its laws against illegal immigration, it is easy to see how this issue has spiraled out of control.  In addition to enforcing its laws regarding deportation, the government must also implement more stern penalties to discourage Bahamians from hiring illegal immigrants.  In France for example, the law prohibits the entry or irregular stay of an illegal immigrant.  If a French citizen is found guilty of harboring such individuals, they can face up to five years in prison and be fined €30,000.  The low-tolerance French government has also gone as far as implementing quotas to combat smugglers who profit financially from moving immigrants into, through and out of France.

The government must strengthen its patrols to minimize the entry of illegal immigrants to our shores.  More of the annual budget should be dedicated to providing the necessary resources to aid the Royal Bahamas Defence Force in its attempt to eradicate illegal activities on the perimeters of our borders.

Many have suggested that bases on our southern islands collectively known as MICAL can help to mitigate some of the problems we currently face in this regard.  The problem of illegal immigration is not unique to The Bahamas.  Hence, we must keep discussions on this issue going and learn from the mistakes and successes of other nations.  We need not reinvent the wheel but must conduct detailed research with a view to implementing a robust immigration policy.

 

Arinthia S. Komolafe is an attorney-at-law.  Comments can be directed at: arinthia.komolafe@komolafelaw.com

Feb 23, 2012

The immigration fiasco pt. 1

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International

Fred Mitchell's Blood libel paints the Bahamian political scene and the 2012 general election in The Bahamas Red

An outrageous and bizarre statement

thenassauguardian editorial

Last week Leader of Government Business in the Senate Dion Foulkes disclosed in the Senate a secret cable from the U.S. Embassy in Nassau appearing on the WikiLeaks website.

The cable included allegations from a public officer in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs alleging that then Minister of Foreign Affairs Fred Mitchell was involved in a scheme to sell visas to Chinese nationals.

Foulkes tabled the cable after being asked to do so by Leader of Opposition Business in the Senate Allyson Maynard-Gibson.

Following the disclosure and tabling of the cable, Mitchell, the shadow minister of foreign affairs for the official opposition, described Foulkes’ actions as a new low in Bahamian politics.

Bahamians can judge for themselves what they think of Foulkes’ decision to disclose the cable.  We have observed Bahamian politics for many years.  We were also the original publisher of the WikiLeaks cables in The Bahamas.  Our series of stories reporting on these cables can be found on The Nassau Guardian’s website.

Given what we have observed over many years and as well as our decision to publish the WikiLeaks cables, we do not believe that their disclosure in the political arena is in itself problematic in terms of matters of policy and governance.  We would abhor the use of the cables to attack the personal lives of political figures.

What we do believe is a low point and way beyond the pale is comments made by Mitchell in response to Foulkes’ disclosure.  We reported those comments in detail in last Friday’s paper.

Mitchell stated: “I am now before the Bahamian people with clear eyes and I want them to see the whites of my eyes.  What Dion Foulkes has done is a blood libel from which there can be no coming back.”

Mitchell continued: “This blood libel by you [Dion Foulkes] has now set enmity between me and your house.  I take it personally and will deal with you accordingly.  There will be no retreat and no surrender.  You can take that to the bank.”

Mitchell’s comments are not only a low point.  They are bizarre.  They have no place in political discourse.  They have violent connotations.

The term “blood libel” has a particular and terrible history.  It refers to the obscene accusation that a particular group murders others in order to use their blood for various rituals.  Often, the alleged victims are children.

What exactly does Mitchell mean when he says there will be enmity between his house and that of Foulkes?  Is Mitchell threatening violence?  Might this be a matter for the Royal Bahamas Police Force to investigate?

Mitchell should retract various elements of his remarks.  He should apologize to Foulkes.  Failure to do either of these will result in Mitchell doing permanent damage to his credibility.

The opposition must distance itself from Mitchell’s dangerous remarks.  The leader of the opposition should warn Mitchell that there is no place in our politics for talk of “blood libel” and “enmity between me and your house”.

Feb 21, 2012

thenassauguardian editorial

Caribbean Blog International

In The Bahamas, it seems, if the police have "strong reasons" to believe you are guilty of trespassing, or noise pollution, or vagrancy, you are sure to be placed under arrest... ...But if you perpetrate an illegal scheme that has immense diplomatic and national security consequences for the entire country, well that's OK

THE REWARDS OF CORRUPTION


By PACO NUNEZ
Tribune News Editor


THE big story last week was obviously the back-and-forth claims of visa fraud between the two major parties.

First, FNM Senator Dion Foulkes told of a Foreign Affairs officer who claimed her former boss, Fox Hill MP Fred Mitchell, tried to pressure staff into granting entry visas to 30 ineligible Chinese nationals. Denying the claims, Mr Mitchell produced a police report showing his accuser was herself suspected of issuing visas in return for cash.

There was nothing particularly new in any of this - the claims against Mr Mitchell were published online months ago by Wikileaks, while the visa-for-cash investigation made headlines in 2005.

What the public should sit up and take notice of, however, are recommendations in the police report released by Mr Mitchell.

The targets of the investigation were suspected of selling entry visas to Haitian nationals at $1,500 a pop.

No one knows how many documents were illegally issued, but the racket is said to have involved a fleet of boats that ferried passports, some of which turned out to be forgeries, to and from Haiti. The scam was also thought to have made use of aircraft implicated in drug and human trafficking operations.

In the end, investigators decided there were "strong reasons to conclude" that certain employees were involved in "corrupt and unethical practices" at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Their recommendations? Safeguards should be put in place, staff should be periodically rotated, and those thought to be involved should be transferred or reassigned.

Reassigned?

A group of civil servants are thought to have enriched themselves by helping untold numbers of illegal immigrants enter the country, some bearing fake passports, on flights operated by known drug and human smugglers, and the police believe they should remain on the public payroll?

In the Bahamas, it seems, if the police have "strong reasons" to believe you are guilty of trespassing, or noise pollution, or vagrancy, you are sure to be placed under arrest. But if you perpetrate an illegal scheme that has immense diplomatic and national security consequences for the entire country, well that's OK.

It is hard to imagine a plausible justification for this. The police might say they found insufficient evidence to charge anyone. But in that case, they have to explain why they recommended anyone be transferred or reassigned in the first place.

And since when does a lack of conclusive evidence stop investigating officers in their tracks? Surely strong suspicions should be followed up with warrant requests, arrests, raids, interrogations, and so on.

What's more, according to the report this was an undercover investigation. Are we to believe the police's mole saw enough to have "strong suspicions" about a number of employees, but did not come across a single shred of hard evidence?

The report claims an undercover agent saw a ministry official and a Haitian man suspected of being a passport mule "in the stairway exchanging documents for what appeared to be cash. He returned in the evening to the Ministry at the back door and collected the processed documents."
Shortly thereafter, the report says, the man was seen "distributing the passports to Haitian nationals who were waiting in the parking lot at Market Street."

Surely this is enough circumstantial evidence to make a few arrests.

Critics of the PLP will conclude from all this that the investigation, which took place during the Christie administration, was never intended to have any real teeth.

Indeed, it reeks of a "commissioned" report, requested by the government for future use in just such a mud-slinging contest as the one that took place last week.

But we should pause before condemning the PLP alone.

What about the Ministry of Education staff who were caught red-handed stealing classroom supplies and furniture just last year?

They were all arrested and removed from their jobs, but formal charges were never filed, and a few months later they were back at the ministry in different positions.

Some of them, according to well placed sources, were even appointed to the team managing an $11.8 million loan from the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB). Talk about letting the hand into the cookie jar.

There are also long-standing allegations of kickback schemes that permeate the entire ministry. These too have been the subject of investigations, but the most that ever came of it was a few forced early retirements. Full benefits, of course.

And then there is the Ministry of Housing scandal. It is claimed that thousands of dollars in bogus fees were added to the cost of houses under the last PLP government, leading to a multi-million dollar payout to the perpetrators.

The Christie government said it caused an investigation to be launched, but of course found no wrongdoing. And as the FNM's first term back in office draws to a close, the Attorney General's Office has yet to bring anyone before the courts - despite the fact that police recommended at least six people be charged as far back as 2008.

This would all be laughable if it weren't so tragic. In these two cases, let us not forget, the victims are school children and low-income families.

The reasons behind the reluctance of politicians to punish public service corruption are clear.
Whichever party is in charge at a given time is interested in keeping hold of power, and doesn't want any major scandals on their watch, no matter who is responsible.

The public service is also a huge source of support for both major parties, and huge shake-ups that end with people going to jail will probably mess with established voting trends.

But what about the police? Calculations based on image and reputation are all fine and good for politicians, but have no place in law enforcement, right?

Wrong, according to the visa scandal investigators, who wrote in their report that: "At this stage, whether something can be done or not in terms of a criminal investigation and prosecution cannot supersede the need to prevent further damage to the image and reputation of the Ministry..."

And here I was thinking the police's job was to bust law breakers and let the chips fall where they may.

What do you think?

* Email pnunez@tribunemedia.net with your comments, or visit www.tribune242/insight to join in the online conversation.

February 20, 2012

tribune242

Caribbean Blog International

The Bahamas and the illegal immigration debate: ...as a matter of urgency, The Bahamian government must ascertain the number of undocumented immigrants that exist in The Islands...

The immigration fiasco pt. 1

By Arinthia S. Komolafe

Many Bahamians were offended and outraged by the remarks made by President Michel Martelly of the Republic of Haiti during his recent visit to The Bahamas.  During his time here, Martelly paid courtesy calls on the governor general, the prime minister, the leader of the opposition and individuals of Haitian heritage, albeit not in that order.

Martelly’s visit came as a shock to the majority of Bahamians who had been unaware of his impending visit to The Bahamas.  Our prime minister indicated during a press conference held on February 11, 2012, four days after Martelly’s initial arrival that The Bahamas government had not invited Martelly, but rather he had been notified by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Saturday February 4, 2012, a non-working day, that Martelly intended to stop in The Bahamas en route to Mexico.  It was later confirmed that very day that Martelly would remain a day and a night in The Bahamas.  In fact, the president arrived in The Bahamas on the evening of February 7 and departed on February 8, 2012.

It seems fair to say that The Bahamas government erred by not officially informing the Bahamian people that Martelly would make an official visit to The Bahamas.  The president had left Haiti to visit Venezuela and Panama where he was expected to remain two days each in both countries from February 3 to February 7.  Martelly traveled to Venezuela to attend the 11th Summit of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas (ALBA) and to Panama to discuss matters pertaining to Haitians living in Panama and the delivery of visas to Haitians by the Panamanian government.  It is reported that on short notice, Martelly decided to extend his travels to include the countries of The Bahamas and Curacao.

It is reported that the Haitian government issued a statement through its Ministry of Foreign Affairs informing the Haitian people of Martelly’s adjusted itinerary.  The question remains that if in fact our government had been aware of Martelly’s visit from Saturday February 4, why wasn’t the Bahamian public notified?  It is apparent that thousands of individuals of Haitian descent in The Bahamas had been duly informed as evidenced by the attendance at the Church of God’s auditorium.

During Martelly’s recent visit to Curacao, he was greeted at the airport by the prime minister of Curacao, Gerrit Schotte, and other dignitaries.  Subsequently the Haitian diplomatic envoy and Curacao dignitaries attended a meeting with persons of Haitian origin on the specific request of Martelly.  It is worth noting that nationals of Curacao were also present at the aforementioned gathering.  The national anthems of both countries were sung and Martelly made remarks in English when addressing the people of Curacao and in Creole when addressing the people of Haitian descent.  The actions of the Curacao government evidence an intention to unify relations between both countries as opposed to divide.  In light of the events that unfolded this week, it can be argued that the actions of The Bahamas government speak otherwise.  Bahamians would have been equally interested to hear the remarks of Martelly.

The normal course of protocol for an official visit from a head of state would have been to receive a formal written request from the Haitian Embassy in The Bahamas addressed to the chief of protocol suggesting dates for the visit, names of individuals with whom the head of state would like to meet and the purpose of the visit (i.e., the specific topics to be discussed).

The protocol department within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) would have determined availability and arranged the official itinerary of Martelly.  As mentioned, the details of President Martelly’s visit were confirmed on Saturday, February 4, 2012.  Martelly arrived in The Bahamas on Tuesday, February 7, 2012.  The Bahamas MOFA had the entire working days of the 6th and 7th to inform the Bahamian people of Martelly’s visit and his proposed itinerary, just as the Haitian MOFA did in Haiti.  Protocol and diplomacy appear to have escaped The Bahamas government on this matter which appears to have conducted protocol in reverse.

The reaction

The overwhelming consensus among Bahamians is that our prime minister’s response to the matter was unacceptable to say the least.  What is clear is that our prime minister appears to be out of touch with the concerns of his people.  Moreover, the silence of most members of Parliament on this issue leaves little to be desired in the face of the public discussion that has taken place on this matter.

The recent visit has sparked the age old conversation on illegal immigration in our country, particularly among Haitian nationals.  Haiti is a country that has been plagued by socio-economic and political instability.  The Caribbean Community (CARICOM) and the United States of America have primarily carried the burden of housing Haitian nationals in search of political asylum or refugee status.  There is no doubt that CARICOM members would welcome trade opportunities with Haiti that will be mutually beneficial for our nations.  A healthy and prosperous Haiti is in the best interest of all; The Bahamas included.

Nevertheless, the matter of illegal immigration in our country must be addressed by the government.  It is wrong for Bahamians and parliamentarians to gloss over this issue of illegal immigration and allege that Bahamians are discriminative, racist and prejudiced in an attempt to silence Bahamians on this matter.  Bahamians are generally welcoming people and recognize the contributions that foreigners make to build this country.  However, this fact cannot be confused with the importance of enforcing Bahamian laws on illegal immigration.  It is worth noting that other countries such as Jamaica and Barbados are also faced with the same challenges.

Many CARICOM countries already find it difficult to meet budget requirements with their limited resources and constrained revenue sources.  Many have shared in the burdens of Haiti’s socio-economic and political instability through increased illegal immigration.  Many have also provided aid and assistance to the government of Haiti over the years.

The Haitian presence

In The Bahamas, there is a gray area that is expanding and will continue to have a vast impact upon our socio-economic position if we do not address the matter with expediency.  There are so-called ‘shantytowns’ existing all over New Providence and throughout the Family Islands that successive governments have failed to clean up.  Allegedly illegal immigrants of Haitian descent occupy Bahamian land free of charge, their children attend Bahamian public schools and they also utilize healthcare services.  Bahamian taxpayers’ funds make it possible for government-run entities to function.  In this sense, Bahamians believe they have every right to speak on the matter of illegal immigration and the effects it has upon Bahamian society.

Separate and apart from migrants that came here illegally, there are a group of dispossessed individuals who are aware of the fact that they have a constitutional right and are being overlooked.  These individuals were born in The Bahamas and in most cases educated here.  We must do our best to regularize such individuals.  As long as the constitution provides the means, the constitutional right of this group of individuals should be honored without delay.  What The Bahamas government must be careful not to do is to impose upon the Bahamian people the extreme liberal policy that Martelly is suggesting regarding our constitution in light of our very own economic position.  To grant individuals born in The Bahamas to non-Bahamians citizenship upon birth will most certainly open the floodgates for increased migration to The Bahamas.  Such a policy could negatively impact the preservation of the indigenous Bahamian population, who like the remainder of the Caribbean generally have a lower birth rate than Haitians.  For instance, The Bahamas has a population of approximately 350,000; Barbados, 280,000; Jamaica, 2.8 million; Dominica, 72,000 and Curacao, 142,000.  All of these countries, who together house a growing population of Haitians descendants, have not jointly accumulated the total population of Haiti, which is estimated to be 9.7 million.

More importantly and as a matter of urgency, The Bahamas government must ascertain the number of undocumented immigrants that exist in the country.  The Netherland Antilles launched an immigration amnesty program called the “Brooks Tower Accord” that provided for undocumented aliens in the Netherland Antilles to register themselves, receive temporary permits and therefore legalize their status.  The registration lasted for six weeks from November 3 – December 15, 2009.  The agreement covered three categories.  Immigrants who arrived before December 31, 2001 fell in Category I were able to apply for a permit on their own merit.  Immigrants who arrived between January 1, 2002 to January 1 2006, fell in Category II and required their employers to apply on their behalf.  Finally, immigrants who arrived after January 1, 2006 were not guaranteed regularization and would more than likely have to leave the country or be repatriated.  Whereas there is not a one-size-fits-all approach to addressing the illegal immigration problem, our leaders should explore programs of this nature in formulating a solution and a strategy to the way forward.

Bahamians must continue to discuss this matter in the attempt to move our leaders to make significant progress on illegal immigration.  We have elected successive governments to protect our borders, among other things, and they have been found wanting on the issue of illegal immigration. One thing is certain, we must continue to monitor the socio-economic and political position of Haiti to provide assistance where necessary.

 

•Arinthia S. Komolafe is an attorney-at-law.  Comments can be directed at: arinthia.komolafe@komolafelaw.com

Feb 16, 2012

The immigration fiasco pt. 2

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International

Wikileaks and Bahamian Politics: ...former Foreign Affairs Minister Fred Mitchell is accused of being ‘complicit in visa fraud’ and ‘pressuring’ staff at the ministry to issue visas to ‘ineligible’ Chinese applicants during his term in office... according to a secret U.S. Embassy cable tabled in the Senate

Mitchell accused of corruption

By Taneka Thompson
Guardian Senior Reporter
taneka@nasguard.com

A senior Ministry of Foreign Affairs official accused former Foreign Affairs Minister Fred Mitchell of being ‘complicit in visa fraud’ and ‘pressuring’ staff at the ministry to issue visas to ‘ineligible’ Chinese applicants during his term in office, according to a secret U.S. Embassy cable tabled in the Senate yesterday.

Bahamian Consular Affairs Chief Dorothea Lafleur also told an Embassy official that Mitchell was ‘likely receiving financial kickbacks for the visas that were issued’, though she said she had no hard proof of this, the cable said.  Leader of Government Business in the Senate Dion Foulkes tabled the cable, which was written on April 24, 2007, and published on the Internet by the whistleblower organization, WikiLeaks.

According to the cable, the U.S. Embassy’s consular chief met with Lafleur on April 12 at Lafleur’s invitation.

The cable said, “[Lafleur] accused Foreign Minister Fred Mitchell of complicity in pressuring consular officers to issue visas to patently ineligible applicants.

“She further alleged that Mitchell was involved in a fraudulent visa scam to bring in a large group of Chinese nationals.  According to Lafleur, Mitchell attempted to pressure consular officers to issue the visas and, when unsuccessful, attempted to bypass Bahamian consular law and division leadership.”

After Foulkes tabled the cable in the Senate, Mitchell released a statement, dismissing the allegations as fabrication from a disgruntled employee.

He said the fabrication is now being used in the government’s election smear campaign.  The former minister also told The Nassau Guardian he plans to sue Lafleur over the comments attributed to her in the cable.

He said the Free National Movement made similar claims back in 2007, which were unsupported after a police investigation found no evidence of wrongdoing in the ministry during his five years as minister.

The cable said Lafleur told the Embassy official that Mitchell directly ordered her to issue visas to 30 Chinese nationals whose applications were sponsored by then Member of Parliament Sidney Stubbs.

Lafleur said she refused to issue the visas and after pressure from Mitchell she asked for further documentation on the applicants, according to the cable.

“She was informed by Mitchell and Stubbs that they all were high-level managers at large, multinational Chinese companies in China and were coming to The Bahamas at the invitation of Stubbs for business related travel,” the cable said.

According to the cable, after a week-long review, the Chinese Embassy told Lafleur that there was no record of any of the companies listed by Mitchell “with the exception of one company which they characterized as a small ‘mom and pop operation’ in China”.

“Lafleur again refused to issue the visas,” the cable added.

The document also said: “Lafleur claims that as a result of her refusals, Mitchell appointed another official above her in the Consular Affairs Office, who would have the authority to issue over Lafleur’s denials.

“This unlawful appointment provoked the entire consular division to go on strike.”

The Embassy official noted in the cable that the strike was widely reported in the news, but it was attributed to administrative issues in the consular division.

“Mitchell was forced to remove his appointee from the oversight position to end the strike,” the cable said.

“He then tried to get the Chinese visas approved by assigning issuing power to the Bahamian Embassy in Beijing, staffed by an ambassador.  That idea was squashed when the permanent secretary asked Consular Affairs about the idea, and was told that the ambassador had no consular training and that the UK Embassy in Beijing was more qualified by virtue of language and cultural familiarity to issue visas on behalf of The Bahamas.”

The cable said Lafleur also stated that Mitchell had sent another Bahamian to China to promote travel (and visas) to The Bahamas, but that person lacked diplomatic status there and had been removed from the country as a visa overstay.

“Asked why Mitchell would be personally interested in facilitating fraudulent visa issuance to Chinese nationals, Lafleur alleged that Mitchell received a portion of whatever fee the Chinese nationals paid for the visa,” the cable said.

“While lacking hard proof, Lafleur cited the lack of support for the visas from the Chinese Embassy and the involvement of the notorious Sidney Stubbs.”

The cable said Lafleur also expressed relief that Mitchell would not be returning as Foreign Minister.

“Citing internal sources, and noting that Mitchell had already completely cleaned out his office at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Lafleur said that regardless of which party wins the election, Minister Mitchell would not be returning.

“Lafleur noted that she favored the governing PLP in the upcoming election, as long as the PLP does not reappoint Mitchell as foreign minister.”

The cable said Lafleur's bribery allegation adds credence to allegations that have long been circulating in The Bahamas regarding Mitchell, and which are being used by the opposition (FNM) to discredit Mitchell, who faces a tight race against a formidable opposition candidate for his  parliamentary seat, the 2007 cable said.

“The allegation also fits with a number of events that took place and suspicions that have been suggested by Ministry of Foreign Affairs contacts,” it added.

“For example, a staff walkout did take place within recent months that was poorly understood and explained in the media.  Newspaper reports have, however, hit around the edges of this scandal, and Mitchell is squarely in the cross hairs of the Free National Movement and its anti-corruption ‘It is About Trust’ election theme.

“In fact, FNM leader [Hubert] Ingraham has privately pledged to devote whatever resources it takes to defeat Mitchell.  The fact that Mitchell now also appears to be a target of his own senior staff — even staff that supports his party's re-election — adds more credibility to the view that Mitchell may not keep his Foreign Affairs portfolio even if he and the PLP are able to win re-election.”

But in his statement yesterday, Mitchell said, “There is not one scintilla of evidence to suggest any malfeasance by me in public office.  In fact, the record shows that with regard to both passport issuance and visa issuance I never issued any visa or passport to anyone or caused such an issuance. [The allegations] were discredited by a thorough police investigation, a management audit by the Public Service Commission and by the auditor general.”

During her contribution in the Senate yesterday, Leader of Opposition Business Allyson Maynard-Gibson said Foulkes’ comments were based on ‘Wikileaks gossip’.

She said there was an investigation into the allegations at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs before the PLP was voted out of office in May 2007 and added that “no irregularities were found”.

Foulkes tabled the document not long after Maynard-Gibson asked him to.

Feb 16, 2012

thenassauguardian

Who will win the 2012 general election? ...Based on a review of the candidates and the reconstituted constituencies, as of today, we believe that the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) will win 13 seats... the Free National Movement (FNM) will win 13 seats... the Democratic National Alliance (DNA) will win two seats... and 10 seats are toss ups

Who will win the next general election?

By Philip C. Galanis

(Author’s note: The general content of this column was presented by the author in an address to the Rotary Club of West Nassau at Graycliff Restaurant on Thursday, February 9, 2012.)

 

This week, as we rapidly approach the general election, we would like to Consider This...who will win the next general election?

Our comments are framed in the context of where we presently stand and our election forecasts will be amended before the general election, much like the frequently updated hurricane predictions we get each year.

For now, however, we believe that the elections are the PLP’s to lose.  There are easily verifiable facts that support the premise that the PLP should win.  They include:

1. The unsubstantiated claims by the FNM that, during its term in office, the PLP had its hands in the cookie jar.  To date, not one iota of credible evidence has been presented by anyone to support that claim.  A reasonable observer could therefore draw the conclusion that either there is no evidence to support this claim or that the accusations could affect other persons the government does not want to implicate.  These assertions suggest an advantage for the PLP because it seems to imply that the leader of the FNM is desperately reverting to innuendos and speculation left over from the 2007 campaign that he knows he still cannot – or will not – substantiate.

2. The PLP is fielding impressive candidates.  With few exceptions, the PLP candidates are untainted and scandal-free, so to paint the entire party with a scandalous brush no longer applies.

3. We should not lose sight of the fact that the FNM also has several persons who are not running again.  Can it be that Hubert Ingraham believes that the FNM cannot withstand the scrutiny and standard of integrity to which he is holding the PLP?  If there is a debate on scandals, there are some in the FNM who would be found wanting and we submit that Ingraham prefers not opening that Pandora’s box.

4. Ingraham’s autocratic and bellicose leadership style has grown tiresome.  He is a one-man band, whose approach is: his way or the highway.  Bahamians are tired of that leadership style, especially young Bahamians who are fast becoming the deciding factors in any general election.

5. The FNM has not introduced any major new projects since assuming office and has completed projects that were conceived, or started, by the PLP.

6. The rise of the national debt to a record $4.2 billion, an increase of $1.2 billion, or 40 percent, in five years.  The consequences of this are enormous and far-reaching, with the burden of debt stretching generationally.

7. Crime is at an all-time high with murder records in four of the last five years, topped by 127 murders in 2011 and 14 so far for 2012.

8. According to the Department of Statistics November Labour Force and Household Income Survey, the country’s unemployment rate is 15.9 percent.  New Providence’s unemployment rate of 15.1 percent and Grand Bahama’s 21.2 percent are abysmal.  Even more disconcerting is that youth unemployment has increased to a staggering 34 percent.

9. Home foreclosures are at record levels.  Even the Bahamas Mortgage Corporation has witnessed unprecedented foreclosures.

10. Thousands of Bahamians cannot afford to keep their electricity connected because they just don’t have the money to do so, sometimes having to choose feeding their families in the dark instead of going hungry with the lights on.  And some families can’t afford either.

11. Special interest groups seem to be the chosen few who are benefiting since the Great Recession started in 2008.  The vast majority of Bahamians have not been so fortunate.  To paraphrase Dickens, these are the best of times for the few and the worst of times for the many.

12. There has been a record number of business closures during the last five years.

13. Individuals and businesses have tremendous difficulty in accessing urgently needed capital for start-up or expansion purposes.

14. The abominably executed roadworks have put hundreds of Bahamians out of business and many workers on the streets.

15. Too many foreigners have been the beneficiaries of the FNM government, at the cost of many unemployed Bahamians who are capable and willing to work.  Foreigners have benefited from the enormous increase in the national debt which Bahamians will have to repay for generations to come.

16. Illegal immigration is out of control with the government bereft of any plans for its containment.

17. The Grand Bahama economy is comatose with no relief in sight for the neglected residents of that island.

18. The misery index has skyrocketed and the rapidly expanding numbers of impoverished Bahamians have lost any hope of maintaining their expected standard of living.  The Bahamian middle-class is rapidly vanishing.

Registered voters

A record number of 154,391 voters registered as of February 3, 2012 compared to 150,684 in 2007.  We predict that a record number of persons will vote in 2012.  As we witnessed in 1967, 1992, 2002 and 2007, Bahamians have a history of voting governments out of office instead of voting for a party to become the government.  Bahamians have registered in such large numbers because they are discouraged, disillusioned and disappointed and want the government to know it by sending a definitive message via their ballots.

The DNA factor

The DNA will mount an impressive challenge to the established parties and in some cases will be spoilers by determining the outcome for candidates who would not likely win unless there are three candidates.

If the DNA wins several seats, we could end up with a coalition government, which last occurred when there were 38 seats in Parliament.

Predictions for the elections

Based on a review of the candidates and the reconstituted constituencies, as of today, we believe that the PLP will win 13 seats, the FNM will win 13 seats, the DNA will win two seats, and 10 seats are toss ups.

Closing the deal

If the PLP is going to win, it must do several things:

1. This election must not be fought on the PLP’s 2002 – 2007 record.  This is Ingraham’s game plan and the PLP must not allow him to frame the debate along these lines.

2. The PLP must contest this election by fighting on three premises:

a) The state of the Bahamian economy.  The PLP should ask the voter: “Are you better off today than you were in May 2007?”  We believe the honest reply will be a resounding no!

b) The PLP must clearly articulate its vision for the future.  Voters have grown weary of hearing about the accomplishments of the past and want to hear about future plans for the nation and for the people.  The PLP must make this a campaign about ideas and vision and not about leadership and personalities.

c) The PLP must showcase the impressive talent of its team and richness of its ideas.  Above all, the PLP must convince the Bahamian people that they will not allow any single individual to dictate the course of policy formulation as the great debate regarding the development of a modern Bahamas continues.

Conclusion

As the election approaches, we will refine our predictions and be more definitive about those toss up seats.

•Philip C. Galanis is the managing partner of HLB Galanis & Co., Chartered Accountants, Forensic & Litigation Support Services. He served 15 years in Parliament. Please send your comments to: pgalanis@gmail.com

Feb 13, 2012

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International

Bahamians of Haitian descent did not see anything wrong with Haitian President Michel Martelly’s message to Haitian-Bahamians and Haitians on his recent visit to The Bahamas

Young Haitian-Bahamians weigh in on Martelly controversy

By Krystel Rolle
Guardian Staff Reporter
krystel@nasgaurd.com

Two Bahamians of Haitian descent have weighed in on the raging debate over Haitian President Michel Martelly’s recent controversial statements, saying that his comments were “blown out of proportion” and “misunderstood”.

During an interview on the Star 106.5 FM radio program ‘Jeffrey’ on Monday evening, Manishka Desinor, 26, who was naturalized three years ago, and Allie Lafleur, 28, who was naturalized recently, said they did not see anything wrong with Martelly’s message to Haitian-Bahamians and Haitians last Tuesday.

As previously reported by The Nassau Guardian, in a meeting with over 6,000 Haitians and Haitian-Bahamians at the Church of God Auditorium on Joe Farrington Road, Martelly urged them to align themselves with the political party that will best serve their interests.

“I told them to organize themselves and identify in the upcoming elections who is on their side. That way they can become a force. By being [unified] in the elections they might have people taking care of them. . .this is the democratic way,” the Haitian president said.

His comments sparked outrage among some Bahamians.

But Desinor and Lafleur do not see why his comments caused such a ruckus.

“I don’t think [Bahamians] should be upset about that,” Lafleur said.

“It’s just a comment he’s making to the people. He’s not telling you who to vote for. I can understand if he’s telling you to vote for the PLP or the DNA, then yeah, you could be offended. But he isn’t saying go ahead and vote for [any party]. He’s telling you to vote for the party of your choice.”

Desinor agreed.

“I don’t think he meant to cause any harm or make Bahamians feel like he’s butting into our affairs,” she said, adding that the media misinterpreted Martelly’s statements.

But some members of the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) and the Democratic National Alliance (DNA) did see it that way.

In fact, DNA leader Branville McCartney called for Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham’s resignation, suggesting that the prime minister invited Martelly for political gain.

Ingraham has since refuted that claim.

PLP leader Perry Christie also took issue with Martelly’s statements, suggesting that the Haitian president was out of order.

But Lafleur said he thinks the PLP and the DNA are using the issue for political gain.

Desinor said she doesn’t know anyone in the Haitian community who intends to follow Martelly’s advice to form a voting bloc.

In fact, she said she is considering voting for an independent candidate.

Desinor became eligible to vote about three years ago when her application for citizenship was granted, a process that she said took three years.

Lafleur said he was naturalized 10 years after he applied.

Even though both Desinor and Lafleur’s parents are Haitians who illegally migrated to The Bahamas, the pair who were born in The Bahamas said they are just as much Bahamian as those born to Bahamian parents.

“I don’t consider myself a Haitian. I think of myself as a Bahamian,” Desinor said.

They both claimed that they have been discriminated against because of their parents’ nationality.

Desinor said that when she was growing up she felt “terrible and out of place; like I didn’t belong.”

While they don’t agree that people who were born here to Haitian parents are stateless, they admitted that it is frustrating not having Bahamian status upon birth.

“It’s stressful at times, knowing that you want to do things and you can not.  At 18 your life is at a standstill. You can’t do anything until your citizenship is approved,” Desinor said.

Feb 15, 2012

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International