Children and dependents of Caymanians will not be included in proposed amendments to the Customs and Border Control Bill, the government announced in Parliament during a debate on the bill Monday.
Lawmakers on Monday afternoon voted to pass a second reading of an amendment to the Customs and Border Control Act, which will mandate COVID-19 vaccinations for people on student visas and those getting entry permits from Cabinet.
Requirements under the original proposed amendments to the bill for children and dependents of Caymanians to be vaccinated will be removed in changes during the committee stage, Chris Saunders, the minister of border control and labour, stated in the afternoon portion of the debate.
Saunders stated that, under this piece of legislation and another – the Immigration (Transition) (Amendment) bill which has yet to be debated – no Caymanian would be mandated to receive a vaccination.
He said amendments regarding exemptions for dependents and children of Caymanians had been filed before the meeting on Monday began.
The second reading of a bill occurs before proposed legislation is submitted to a parliamentary committee for consideration. In most cases, a second reading equates to the passing of a bill.
The PACT government came under fire from local and expatriate demonstrators on Saturday and again on Monday, who object to what they say is an attack on their right to choose to be vaccinated or not.
Earlier on Monday, Opposition members Roy McTaggart and Alden McLaughlin queried why the amendments to the two bills only underwent 10 days of public consultation rather than the usual 28 days, and why the bills appeared to be being rushed through the legislative process when they were likely to face a legal challenge.
In his submission, McLaughlin also stated that the PACT government’s decision to reduce quarantine for vaccinated incoming travellers to five days was likely the cause of the current community spread of COVID-19, saying that if the incubation period of the virus is 14 days, there is no scientific logic behind implementing a five-day quarantine.
Saunders, in his response to McLaughlin, retaliated by referring to comments made by the former premier in December in which he said vaccinated arrivals with negative PCR tests would be exempt from quarantine.
The border control minister also defended his government’s decision to go ahead with bringing legislation mandating vaccines when a judicial review had been threatened, saying, “You cannot run a country, or a government, or a Parliament based on the fact that you think whatever laws you pass are going to be challenged. This is how our system of democracy works.”
The minister pointed out that similar legislation mandating vaccinations for work-permit holders, permanent residents and visitors had been passed in Turks and Caicos, and there had been “not one protest”.
“The people of Turks and Caicos have seen first hand how serious and dangerous this COVID pandemic is because they have had COVID deaths,” he said, adding that people in Cayman had been “living in a bubble for so long… [and] will not take this seriously until someone in this country has died from COVID-19”.
He noted that Cayman’s two primary defences against the virus are vaccinations and quarantine, both of which are being used to ensure that the islands can safely reopen its borders.
He said the government had a responsibility to ensure that any Caymanian who is not vaccinated, either by choice, or for medical or religious reasons, is protected.
“There is no mandatory vaccination for Caymanians, but for every single other person coming into this country, that don’t need to be here, they must be vaccinated,” he said.
The bill passed the second reading 11 votes to seven, with all members of government voting for it, and all Opposition members voting against.
The debate on the Immigration (Transition) (Amendment) Bill began shortly before 6pm.
Related Videos
So it’s OK for my child to pass on a potentially deadly virus but not the child of a work permit holder.
Why is that right? It should be one law for all or no law at all.
There was a story on Sky News 2 nights ago about a healthy teenage girl, a dancer and gymnast, who died of Covid in the UK the day she was scheduled to get her first shot.
WHY TAKE CHANCES WITH YOUR CHILDREN’S HEALTH?
“There is no mandatory vaccination for Caymanians, but for every single other person coming into this country, that don’t need to be here, they must be vaccinated,”
SOOOO…Caymanians who are either vaccinated or unvaccinated may spread the virus to each other, as long as a tourist does not come in unvaccinated to do so. Considering a vaccinated tourist entering your island may spread the virus as well, I’m failing to see the logic here. What difference does it make? Taking away a persons freedom of choosing how to protect themselves is wrong. If you are vaccinated, you are already protected, right? I don’t get it. Every person I know that has made the choice not to vaccinate believes in their natural immunity, it really is a thing! Really! It’s true! I would be surprised if all the people who chose not to vaccinate were relying on the country to make rules to protect them. It was THEIR choice….! And everyone else is already protected, so what is the hold up?
Also: “that don’t need to be here”? I believe tourists DO need to be there. The economy is broken, and Cayman’s loyal tourists have wanted nothing more than to help get it back on its feet again.