Opposition MPs raise concerns about impact of immigration bill

Opposition members and independent MPs raised concerns about “unintended consequences” of the reforms contained in the government’s Immigration Bill and warned that it could open the door to legal challenges as well as impacting Caymanian businesses.

Opposition Leader Joey Hew, said in the Parliamentary debate on the bill’s second reading, “I want to support this bill. However, I’m afraid that many aspects of this bill will not stand up to legal scrutiny.”

He said that while government had at least confronted the issue at hand, “The question remains; will the bill before us today achieve what is intended or will the law of unintended consequences far outweigh the desired outcomes.”

Public scrutiny

Government published a White Paper for public consultation in January, but amendments were only published just a day before the debate, which, he said, did not give enough time for proper scrutiny.

“However, 24 hours to review 17 amendments and their implications to such an important and critical bill is simply not enough for us, nor the general public,” he said.

He said that he thought some aspects of the bill will have a negative effect on Caymanian families and Caymanian small and micro businesses, such as the hike in the cost for work permits and temporary work permits.

“The question is, who does the government think is paying these 38,000 work permit fees, in deciding to hike these fees to what could be considered nosebleed levels?” he said. “What data analysis has the government undertaken to advise the various demographics of the Cayman population how these fees will impact them?”

He asked how many permits were applied for by Caymanian businesses, saying, “We feel that these are important statistics to publish [to] allow everyone to see the landscape of fees and how they will trickle down in the economy, because at the end of the day [the] majority of the work permits are from Caymanians or Caymanian businesses.”

Business concern

He said that he had received messages from worried business owners about meeting the increased costs. “Yes, the hotels can manage it. Yes, the law firms can manage it. Yes, the accounting firms can manage it,” he said. “But once again, like [in] our Budget, where is the relief for our small and medium-sized Caymanian businesses? Where is the relief for Caymanians? Show me where these fee increases are going to put Caymanians at work.”

He acknowledged that the government’s majority meant that the Bill was going to pass, but added, “What I see across this bill is a clear pattern where power is expanded without sufficient restraint, where rights are reshaped without proper consultation…[and] legal clarity is sacrificed for administrative convenience, and wealth is elevated above contribution.”

Hew added that he wished the bill had come out as a White Paper first, which would have meant more time for it to be reviewed.

“I don’t think this legislation is ready,” he said. “I think it is rushed. It is internally inconsistent. It is procedurally tainted and it is socially divisive. Immigration reform in this country should not only be efficient but also lawful, fair and genuinely Caymanian in its priorities.”

Deputy Opposition Leader Kenneth Bryan said that the timetable of the amendment being presented meant that “now we’re here scrambling to even understand the amendments and the context that they’re in.”

He added, “When we start to circumvent the processes of Parliament is when we find ourselves in positions that we make mistakes and then all the filtering doesn’t happen. It gets down to the courts. And I can promise you this; there’s a lot of firms out there sitting and waiting to find the loopholes in the law.”

Questions to be asked

Independent MP Chris Saunders said that he was going to support the bill, but that there were still issues to be addressed.

“Is the bill perfect?” he said. “No. Do I have questions? Absolutely. Matter of fact, I probably got a load of questions. But I’ve also learned in my eight years since being elected, we cannot make the perfect be the enemy of the good. It’s a good step. It’s a step in the right direction. I know it’s not the final piece of legislation that is coming. And so, it is my intention to support this bill. Despite having questions, it is still a positive step forward for bettering our people and giving them more opportunity.”

A message of conciliation was struck by Education Minister Rolston Anglin who said, “Let us be very careful about how much we bash prior administrations about who did this and who didn’t do that, because we don’t know all the circumstances and how much work went in, to try and fix differing issues … Let us work together and let us ensure that the outcome is better than we found it.”

Responding to the comments when the debate resumed on the morning of Friday 12 Dec., Immigration Minister Michael Myles said that while he had heard contributions and criticisms in the debate, “I also heard a lot of unfounded allegations, scare mongering and political rhetoric. Members of the opposition bench continue to play politics with our people’s lives.”

He added, “I want the record to show that the government extended multiple courtesies to ensure that the opposition had every opportunity to understand, question and contribute to the Bill.”

Contrary to Hew’s and Bryan’s assertions that there was no time for proper scrutiny and that the amendments are unclear, Myles said, “We hid nothing. We avoided no question. We extended every courtesy possible.”

He told MPs: “We agreed that the opposition would compile their members’ concerns and send them to us so our technical team could respond comprehensively. To date we have not received any list of questions or concerns and received no further inquiries from the deputy leader of the deputy leader of the opposition or his team.”

The Bill is currently in the Committee Stage of the Parliamentary process and will return to Parliament later for its third and final reading.