Majority: Month rollover great

A majority of respondents to last
week’s online poll think a 30-day break off the island for those
who have reached the end of their term limits would be great.

Of the 503 total respondents, 262 –
52.1 per cent – liked the idea of the 30-day break.

“As long as it really creates a
break in residency that will stand up in court, 30 days is fine,” said one

“One to three months can fit into a
reasonable vacation time and allow people to retain their investments, hence
make an investment,” said someone else who identified himself as a Caymanian
voter. “I thought the vision 2008 theory was to not turn our island into a

“This rollover policy was predicted
to fail at what it was intended to accomplish by many when it was first
introduced,” said another respondent. “All it really did was ensure that the
majority of expats sent most of their earnings out of the country to invest in their
futures elsewhere. Why is it not obvious that those people who choose to make
Cayman their home – there are many beautiful places in this world to live –
should be encouraged to spend and invest right here in Cayman? If there was a
chance of a future here, they might just do that, but with zero chance of a
future here, we can be sure that massive amounts of our GDP will leave the
island. How could this possibly be considered good for Cayman?”

“Let people who love it here, live
here,” said another person. “They bring knowledge and experience lacking in
local workforce.”

“The 30-day break will at least
help American expats for tax reasons,” said someone else. “Americans cannot be
in the USA more than 35 days a year and keep their tax exemption status. This
will stimulate our economy if these expats want to buy houses here because of
this, but may raise the price of housing here in the long run.”

“I would have voted for the option
to get rid of the roll over policy altogether,” said one respondent. “It is ridiculous
to have this policy in place.”

The next highest segment of voters
– 84 people or 16.7 per cent – thought the required break for expatriates who
are rolled over should be left where it is now, at one year. “Unfortunately
some employers are paying their expat employees who are rolled over to continue
working for them abroad and when they return, they just get their job back,”
said one person.

“The term should remain as is,”
said someone else. “Cayman is the first country that expats are allowed to come
and dictate the immigration policy. If a Caymanian moved to Canada or the USA,
do you think that you would be given preference over a local in that country?
No! So why are we bending over for these people if life was not great here they
would not want to be here.”

“The citizens of these islands need
jobs,” said another respondent. “Unemployment is growing every day.”

“We’ve already gone off for a
year,” said one person. “Why shouldn’t someone else have to do the same?”

Seventy-five people – 14.9 per cent
– thought the break should be six months.

“The break is only there to prevent
expats from having a right to citizenship,” said one respondent. “Therefore six
months should be ideal.”

“While I accept that expert legal
opinions have been offered, I doubt that thirty days will satisfy the legal
test that domicile was broken, particularly when one could be on a vacation
with no significant changes to residency for this period,” said one respondent.
However, a lesser period than a year is desirable. The truth is that this
policy does not work and should be abandoned.”

Another 49 people – 9.7 per cent –
thought the break should be put back to two years, which is what it was when
the rollover policy was passed into law in 2003.

Thirty-three people – 6.6 per cent
– thought the required break should be forever.

“Why would anyone want to come
back?” asked one person.


week’s poll question

Comments are closed.