OBA: “Enough Of The Rhetoric” On PRC & Status
The OBA said they hope that at the PLP’s Town Hall meeting this evening [June 26], the PLP “does not exaggerate the effect of the Chief Justice’s Permanent Resident Certificate ruling, as they have been doing in the House of Assembly and in the media recently.”
The OBA said the “important point to get clear is that statements that have been made suggesting that if the Permanent Residents get status they will threaten peoples’ jobs are entirely wrong. PRCs already have full freedom of employment.”
“They are here in Bermuda now – no net increase in Bermuda’s population is threatened,” the OBA added. “They already hold jobs so are not taking anything from Bermudians. Many of them own property as well.
“The PLP have been casting this issue as one which the OBA welcomes because PRCs who get Bermuda status, the PLP suggests, will vote for the OBA. That is not correct.
“The list of PRCs contains Americans, Barbadians, British, Canadians, Filipinos, Irish, Jamaicans, Portuguese and something like 250 from other countries. Who could even guess what their politics are?”
Meanwhile the PLP said they would like to remind the public of the Town Hall Meeting to be held tonight at Devonshire Recreation Club at 5:30pm.
Panelists will be Shadow Immigration Minister Walton Brown, Shadow Attorney General Michael Scott, Shadow Human Affairs Minister Rolfe Commissiong, and youth activist Mr. Eron Hill. The meeting will be moderated by Senator Marc Daniels.
“We encourage everyone to come out to listen to the panel, voice concerns, and ask questions as to how the potential awarding of status to PRC holders will affect the Bermuda we live in,” a PLP spokesperson said.
The full statement from the OBA is below:
The One Bermuda Alliance hopes that at their Town Hall meeting at the Devonshire Recreation Club this evening, the Progressive Labour Party does not exaggerate the effect of the Chief Justice’s Permanent Resident Certificate ruling, as they have been doing in the House of Assembly and in the media recently.
The important point to get clear is that statements that have been made suggesting that if the Permanent Residents get status they will threaten peoples’ jobs are entirely wrong. PRCs already have full freedom of employment.
The people who are affected by the Chief Justice’s ruling have all of them spent many years in Bermuda. In fact they have to have been here since at least 31st July 1989. They have made in many cases very substantial contributions to Bermuda’s economy and social fabric.
They are here in Bermuda now – no net increase in Bermuda’s population is threatened. They already hold jobs so are not taking anything from Bermudians. Many of them own property as well.
The PLP have been casting this issue as one which the OBA welcomes because PRCs who get Bermuda status, the PLP suggests, will vote for the OBA. That is not correct.
The list of PRCs contains Americans, Barbadians, British, Canadians, Filipinos, Irish, Jamaicans, Portuguese and something like 250 from other countries. Who could even guess what their politics are?
The OBA does not welcome this as something that will give us a political advantage – we see it as a headache for all Bermudians that was caused by the carelessness of the PLP Government in trying to do something quickly without proper study and thought.
The PLP’s suggested method of dealing with the loophole is to simply shut the door and announce that the case is closed.
That’s like a country trying to deal with a refugee problem by simply shutting down the camps where refugees live. Quite apart from anything else, people must not be treated that way in this day and age.
The PLP suggests we are failing to stand up for Bermudians, but what we are doing is trying to solve this problem with due regard for the law, for justice and for human rights. Although in this case they seem not to want to remember, these are principles the Progressive Labour Party itself has claimed many times to stand for.
We have no intention of throwing up the kind of iron-fisted defence suggested by Mr Marc Bean and his colleagues to deny these people their human rights, rights that have very recently been affirmed by the Hon. Chief Justice.
Finally, we would point out that the PLP has used many figures to define the scope of the problem – figures which have typically become larger as their voices have become louder.
But the real figures paint a much smaller picture. Some 1,455 people would be eligible under the clause that triggered the Chief Justice’s decision. The clock must start again for their spouses – one needs to have been married to a Bermudian for 10 years before one is eligible for status.
As for children – they would be deemed to have Bermuda status only if they were under 22. This means most children will be too old. The numbers are small. Enough of the rhetoric.
Update 6.04pm: The meeting is underway, we will have video coverage later on
I agree that those long term PRC individuals should be given status…… the scarey part is the amount of new people currently being given PRC status….. are they then all going to be given status as well? These are the ones who WILL be taking jobs.
This only applies to PRC’s who have been here since before July 31st, 1989.
COME OUT ONE AND ALL> THIS IS AN IMPORTANT SUBJECT MATTER>
COME OUT AND LEARN MORE !!
How sad and immature of the OBAUbp take the position to suggest or call this Rhetoric. Folks should be informed and educated in regards this very important matter. Folks should also have a say. Government should act on behalf of the people.
It is important for folks to express their views in regards to this issue. It is important for Bermuda to do a Comprehensive review on our immigrations laws and policies.
Well done PLP for listening to the people. Keep pushing forward…Come and listen, hear and speak…
The PLP suggests we are failing to stand up for Bermudians, but what we are doing is trying to solve this problem with due regard for the law, for justice and for human rights….Seems like PLP might be right, after all the OBAUbp have FAILED to CLOSE the Loophole…that would look like your standing up for Bermudains… oooh STOP the SPIN OBAubp..
So basically, Betty is saying it’s the OBA’s fault for not cleaning up the mess (ie. this loophole) left by the PLP? So the PLP having created this loophole can still claim to be standing for Bermudians, but the OBA (for not fixing it) can not. The sad thing is, this argument actually makes sense to her.
Betty Trump: Hands down the best example of the surrogate mentality on this island. Keep on keeping on with your blindfaithfulness my dear. I’m sure the PLP appreciate all the puppets they can get!
Stop acting like the UBPoba have been free of various laws over the past 18 months. Many have had to be revised and reviewed. There were many ERROR made by your former AG… so no party is free of that…..
The reality is:
1. PRCs were informed that hey were not ENTTLED to STATUS and therefore should not have any expectations to status. ENTITLEMENT as has been often said of Bermudians, who are.
2. This is NOT an HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUE as PRCs are not stateless and they maintain their citizenship in their homelands.
3. PROTESTING the granting of status of PRCs is not XENOPHOBIC, and no one should apologize for standing up for Bermudians and putting them first.
4.An issue as critical as the granting of status must NOT occur via a loophole as it violates the original intent and spirit of the PRC legislation.
BERNEWS
I do not like the recording of the Meeting shown under this title of OBA Rhetoric.. I think the title should change. This is not as the OBA have indicated, and far from that… lets change the title or show it under its own separate title… THANKS.
Ms Trump, thank you for your comment, but we respectfully point out you are complaining about something that never happened!
The video was never posted on this article, it has been posted on its own article with the title of “Two Hour Video: PLP Town Hall On Immigration”
Thank you
And this too will pass.
Come out and come all to listen to the Tea Party spew their right wing ignorance. They will say anything it takes to defend the political apartheid which they created.
you just talk to hear yourself talk. talked yourself dumb…smh
Wow, you really are grasping at straws, shame you don’t have your eyes open or you would realize that’s not straws you are grasping at.
The PLP were nice enough to make it possible for over a thousand people to be Bermudian, and with regards to the law, justice and human rights, you cannot just take that back.
It has been done and now people who have been living, working and owning property in this country for over a quarter of a century can finally have a voice in the politics that effects their lives. Seems to me the PLP once stood up for that right, extremely hypocritical of them that they don’t anymore.
You (the PLP) created the problem!!!!!!!!! A judge – not the OBA found the loophole and now its the OBAs Fault?
What next? I suppose the failing economy, education, national dept, Grand Atlantic, Quigars, BHC, Berkely Institute, T-Street, TCD and DLBE building was all the OBAs fault too!
“Well done PLP for listening to the people.” –> by drafting/passing the law in question??
The proper label was used. Just check the definition for rhetoric. I’m betting that there will be plenty more of it going around this evening. Hopefully I’ll be proved wrong when I watch the Bernews video coverage.
Dont worry Betty I’ll be there
Betty, rhetoric, is exactly what this meeting of miss information will be!!! A room full of xenophobes listening to the masters of miss information!!! What a total waste of anyone’s time attending this meeting of miss information!!! No thanks, I will pass, so please feel free to have my share of the special plp tea that I am sure will be served at this non event!!!!!
Govt is working “ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE” trying to fix the **** *** from your parties 14 years of MISS MANAGEMENT Further if your party could be UN BIASED and TRUTHFUL we the people PRC or ONION, Black or White etc may listen, but I will not listen to a ONE SIDED and UN INTELLIGENT BIASED POINT OF PROPAGANDA against such..
Garbage.
They already have jobs.
Can you not comprehend?
@ Bernews,as a PRCHolder I have a letter with the do,s and donts for PRC holders from immigration ,is that something that you would be interested in looking at?.
First the Chief Justice’s ruling only applies to people that were here before 1989 – that group has already obtained PRC’s (if they’re interested) and not all of them want status.
Regardless of whether or not they obtain Bda status any new PRC’s will still have the right to work, reside as long as they want, and purchase property. The “benefit” obtained from status is the right to vote [and, since these "new" PRC's aren't eligible for status they won't obtain that].
I think you might find that the number of PRCs that have been issued for people in Bermuda after July 1989 is a fine few. Remember that there was no way to issue new PRC certificates for post 1989 people until about 2011 or 2012 – and those were a scant few that could afford the $120,000 entrance fee AND meet the requirements.
These PRC holders aren’t ever going to be eligible under the current laws for status anyway. I bet you could count on both hands the number of new post 1989 resident PRC grants.
More bogeyman rhetoric methinks.
“Scant and few?” You have no idea! They are being pushed through faster then anyone realises. The $120,000 was dropped to $20,000. Expertise.bm has helped with over a dozen applications in just the last few months.
Actually it’s now $25,000 as of last year and the number of status employees reduced to 10. But point well taken.
What “new people” are being given PRC status???? Lay off the kool aid.
Paula’s Jobmakers 10 year work permit thing has a provision for applying for a PRC. The requirements were pretty stringent and applying carried a hefty fee. The OBA relaxed some of those requirements and lowered the fee around the time they removed term limits.
With PRC, it stops with the kids (dependents of 31A’s get 31B’s) There’s no way for a 31B to confer any status.
the jobs they will be taking are jobs that require qualifications….not many bermudians have that sadly….
If not already in the plan, then I would suggest to the One Bermuda Alliance Govt. send a few representatives out to the “Rec.” to set the record straight, when something is mentioned with the intent of misleading the congregation
Enough of this bull-crap! Now would be the time for the One Bermuda Alliance Members of Parliament to speak up and out…Go out to Devonshire Rec. and represent the people of the Island.
@ Raymond Ray, you go and set the record “straight”……….SMH
What make you think I will not be there?
By the way “Hurricane”, I at least sign my birth given name…Who are you?
@ Raymond Ray, if you do come out, you can set the record straight. Your all that’s needed.
No need to know who I am, too often we get too caught up in the messenger (which is not important) and loose sight of the message.
I dont believe the OBA was “INVITED” to attend. If so, then perhaps they should go. However, they might also not want to bother as THEY ARE THE ONES DRIVING THE SHIP. THEY WILL MAKE ALL OF THE DECISIONS. The shadows can blah blah blah, whine, whine, whine all they want. Newsflash: OBA are running this show now. Amen for that.
“with intent of misleading”?? like how the OBA “mentioned” they would not grant status to PRC holders before the election? You guys are so full of it.
Ian, the OBA doesn’t have a choice in the matter. They appear to have done everything in their power to live up to that promise. They refused the original applications. They fought against it in Court and they’re now appealing the Chief Justice’s ruling. What more can they do?
Really…
Yes really. Do you have any information to the contrary?
But they didn’t grant the PRC’s status, the PLP did
@Ian , the OBA had no intention of changing the law to grant status to PRC holders.
However, like everything else the PLP did in the last 14 years, the law that they produced was not well thought out. The law IS the law, even if it is wrong. If the PLP presented a law with the intention of changing the speed limit to 50 kph but wrote it to say 50 mph and it passed, then that is the law! Even if it is wrong. I agree , that this is not the best example – but I think you get the picture.
Ian, its the PLPs fault. Don’t blame the OBA , they have not changed anything or broken their promise as you suggest. Perhaps, for one you should stop passing the blame and acknowledges that Bermuda is in the state it is in because of the PLP and their policies and laws.
Yes! Fahy should attend to stop the PLP brainwashing.
Look at the panel. Tells you all you need to know about how things will unfold tonight. They should have put Alvin and the Colonel on the panel as well, just to be thorough.
At least Eron won’t have to resign because others aren’t agreeing with him.
Now the truth will come out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Just imagine the screaming that will accompany something like that. Do you think that Bean and Co would actually allow someone to speak the facts at a “town hall meeting?” Considering the spin that they’ve already applied to this issue it would be surprising if they did a Burch and “uninvited” anyone who wasn’t a card-carrying PLP member without a special wristband.
They *hope* the PLP won’t exaggerate? LOL
Gotta love how OBA-supporters completely ignore the fact their party “assured” Bermuda there will be no granting of status to PRC holders before the election.
You do understand how it came to happen, right? I mean, you are capable of following a fairly simple sequence of events, right? Events which started with the PLP passing a law that allowed PRC holders to obtain status?
You do recall the OBA campaigning that they would not grant status to PRC holders before the election right.
You do recall the intent of the PRC policy was very clear right and was set in the interest of acknowleging rights of long term residents in the first place, right. Which makes the OBA liars… again.
You do recognize that anyone with half a brain knows the OBA will do little to uphold the original intent of the PRC policy and WILL attempt to use this for political benefit, right.
If you can be in blatant denial about those obvious points then you’re guzzling the kool aid!
Aren’t the PLP using this for political benefit? I mean, that’s what the townhall is about, whipping up the idiots into a frenzy of hate and xenophobia.
you’re right ian…only those with half a brain thinks that…
The PLP are the ones that gave these rights to PRC holders Ian. No one else.
The law is the law. The ‘original intent’ is not relevant to anything. The law says what the law says. That’s why we write laws down. That’s why we have courts.
You can stay in blatant denial, but it doesn’t change anything. You can complain and whine and stamp your feet and shout at the clouds.
The law, which was put on the books by the PLP, is what counts Ian.
Ian you might very well know what someone with half a brain might think.
Waiting for you and perhaps other PLP “dieharts” (per Betty Talbot) to embrace the simple fact they were the ones who crafted this legal pathway for equal treatment. Or has the PLP forgotten their heritage for the sake of political expediency?
Too difficult for an rectum-hole to comprehend. This was their fault from the beginning…Sad yes, but true!
Typo: Too difficult for a rectum-hole to comprehend.
@ Raymond Ray, leave it to you to stoop as low as to refer to one as a rectum-hole.
I will at least speak what it is I feel towards someone or something and not like others…
PLP wrote the rules.
Go figure.
It doesn’t matter, it’s the law they have no choice.
Anyway, what are you frightened of? These folks are already here, working, owning homes..you want to deny them the vote? Shouldn’t they have representation? Are you arguing for a form of apartheidt?
Mate, you’re really going to try to make that case when we are talking about a party that has gone as far as to CHANGE LAW to serve their desires (e.g. municipal land leasing)?? Dont try to paint the OBA has some helpless victim with their hands tied because its not their style to be made to do something THEY WANT TO DO. We’ve already born witness to that on several occasions.
Who is ignoring facts? You’re blaming the OBA for legislation the PLP wrote and passed and a judge issued ruling? Wow. there’s a stretch.
I mean, you could argue that could be taking advantage of it, but it’s hardly their fault the PLP failed to write it correctly. If you’re trying to imply that this somehow breaks an promise, I fail to see how. Unless somehow the OBA manipulated the PLP into secretly writing bad legislation. Maybe they used that Harry Potter demon magic spell.
Simple context for you Girl on Fire, because I find it frustrating when seemingly intelligent folks direct that intellect toward attempts to rationalize wrong into right.
Your OBA point blank stated they would not grant PRC holders status before the election. Given their track record it comes as no suprise that now they are speaking to accepting a judge’s interpretation of policy as gospel.
The intent was VERY clear on the PRC policy so now we’re going to make this about the PLP not structuring particulars in a way that was ‘air tight’ as if others had recognized the ‘flaw’ prior to this recent ruling?
This is about certain things many predicted would happen under the OBA’s watch happening, under the OBAs watch! And those predictions are not limited to this issue.
You have a tin foil hat? You know you shpuld get one. The OBA are altering brain waves from cell towers. Don’t believe me? Can you take the risk?
OK I’ll try and use simple words then. The OBA are not granting anyone anything. The LAW is what provides for this. And they did not provide the law – the PLP did. They are charged to uphold it, and that is what they are doing. Sorry if you don’t happen to like it.
Now, you can argue that you feel they should change it, but I have already heard legal opinion that it will do nothing to change what’s already in play. The way I understand it (and I’m not a lawyer) but any change to the law would affect future applications, not the ones already in play. You cannot rescind citizenship, you can only alter the means by which future generations can obtain it. So even if they changed the law TONIGHT, it would have no impact on those applications because they are applying under the rules which applied before this date. You can’t back date immigration changes, you can only go forward.
You may not like the result, but the OBA has to enforce the law as is. Now the municipal lease thing is more difficult, because it was a municipality which provided it. I think of it like the USA – the state can make laws, but they can be overruled at the federal level.
Honestly I expect more from you as a frequent poster. You may have legitimate questions and concerns, but going on like this just makes you lose credibility. You sound like sour grapes.
Oh and PS: Why do you always respond to anyone who disagrees with you with the phrase “your OBA”? That’s just childish.
“That’s just childish”
That’s just Ian.
@Ian,
It is my understanding that the legislation that the then PLP government enacted has allowed for the granting of citizenship to PRCs. Is this incorrect? If it is not then surely it is the PLP who have granted PRCs citizenship.
I do see your point that by OBA inaction that PRCs can continue to pursue citizenship. However, the facts clearly show that the then PLP government granted this to PRCs not the OBA government.
Ride
Ride, your understanding of things is clearly by choice rather than an objective response to an observation/situation which is based on knowlege of the dynamics in play between political parties and their respective support bases. And in the case of the OBA, support-base-to-be.
Everyone knows what the intent of the PRC policy was. Beyond that it is obvious that the specifics of it are something that serious time and rigor has been invested into to GET AROUND it. So it speaks to a choice to understand things ‘a certain way’ when one can take a position so ridiculous as the OBA’s in that “Its the PLPs fault this is happening…” all while they expectedly do little / nothing to restore the policy in line with ITS BLATENTLY OBVIOUS INTENT. Beyond of course two appeals they knew(know) will fail.
Can’t say it is a surprise and you can refer to technicalities of the PRC policy all you want. Doesnt change the fact that it is obvious whose watch the granting of status to PRC holders was expected to happen on. People choose to be ‘gullible’ when it serves their views. That is not ‘understanding’
If the PRC holders were, in the PLP’s opinion, clearly going to support the PLP at the polls I feel very safe in saying that their position would be completely different. Then again, so might the OBA’s.
Do the right thing. Grant them status. It is long overdo.
Thanks @Ian for your brilliant and insightful comments they are very enlightening to read and full of wealth of information… refreshing to read comments with FACTS and direction. Keep it up !!
Haha he was just proven that he does know and your congradulating him LOL to funny indeed
LOL
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Do you disagree with universally accepted standards of human rights and representation?
Ian, the OBA doesn’t have a choice in the matter. They appear to have done everything in their power to live up to that promise. They refused the original applications. They fought against it in Court and they’re now appealing the Chief Justice’s ruling. What more can they do?
Sure, they are really expected to put their all and all into this one right. Funny how a judges decision is gospel for them yet they would go as far as to scrap promised referendums and changes laws iro of municipality land leasing in order to ensure their ‘gospel’ always serves their interests.
So what exactly are they going to do? Tell CJ that he is wrong and he should reverse his decision? Tell the QC to “make it so” and ignore the law?
What seems to be the sticking point is that the opening for status was already there in the law but noone seemed to see the forest for the trees.
If government introduced legislation to delete the section of the law I expect that there would be bigger fish to fry than granting of status. I wonder what the 110 already granted naturalization will do if they had the door slammed in their face? Would they just walk away without question or challenge?
Once again trying to mislead people Ian.
LOL
Once again… nothing of substance to share.
Kind of like your arguments
hahahahahahaahhahahahahahaha
LOL stop it mate your gonna have me rolling on the floor
the oba/ubp have not told the truth since they got in the truth is not in them don’t believe a word they say poor craig
funny you did not show any concern for Craig till right this moment.
LOL
Ian, perhaps you can show us a link where they said that?
I looked too, couldn’t find anything. A link would be helpful.
No link from the party faithful? Who needs facts anyway?
Yes enough of the rhetoric!
Filipinos beaten and insulted.
A Canadian lady shopping for her child’s school clothes is ignored, then belittled and insulted for being ‘foreign”
Hate speech graffiti tagged on bus stops.
This is NOT acceptable behaviour.
Bermudians..the nicest people on Earth……
I SAID good MAWNNIN!
All by design Camper…..all by design.
Part 9 of Operation Pressure Cooker.
Wait until you see more photo’s of an ex-premier.
That’s when Section 1 B takes effect.
While all of that is deplorable, what exactly does it have to do with the subject of giving PRC holders status???
Face it popa your scared of them getting to vote init cause all of your supposed concerns that you and any in the PLP have are completely unjustified except the vote. Since the PLP are so friendly towards this group they should flock to the PLP in large numbers like the white Bermudian (yes there are white Bermudians) the PLP have been so nice to in the last 8 to ten years.
LOL reap what you sow
and Aron Hill that what the PLP consider the next crop of PLP politician, please just cause you join group out of your own self interest does not make you any kind of leader.
If this was Chewstick, the OBA would drop the mic.
We all know that tonight’s meeting will bring out the worst of the PLP.
The emotive, blame foreigners, ignore human rights, we’re still controlled by the Eurocentric OBA rubbish.
PLP is a party stuck in the last century, and in danger of complete collapse unless they set themselves free from their own shackles.
In addition, Marc Bean is doing them no favours. He could well put the last nail in the PLP coffin.
They say empty vessels make the most noise – and a bunch of them will be ‘darn de rack’ tonight.
Thank you OBA for making a statement on this misinformation! I was afraid that you would remain silent on the issue and not take a stand on the legal aspects and the actual eligibility of the current PRCs.
The numbers seem to always include spouses who have a 10 year wait unless they hold PRC themselves, dependents who would unlikely be eligible because of age and others including recent PRC grants outside of the 1989 timeframe.
The law speaks for itself. It’s not a matter of debate and as the statement said it would be unfair to slam the door in the face of those who rightly or wrongly now have an expectation of their application being heard fairly.
The PLP lawyer that drafted that piece of legislation is a very competent individual, very strict, a stickler for detail. I’m concerned that the bill may have been structured to ensure ‘loopholes’ were ‘hidden’ from clear sight. That’s why even the learned MPs missed it….I’ll give Kimmy a pass on this one as she won’t ‘go along’ with an intentional loophole to benefit a few chosen PRCs….I voted for fairness in 1998…why the PLP have engaged tactics similar to the big bad UBP is a huge let-down, just reversing the dynamics of who benefits according to their needs……so saddening ;-(
I like to believe it was simply an oversight. Even the most meticulous can make mistakes.
When the PLP changed the legislation to allow PRCs, the buck pretty much stopped at the chief immigration officer. They alone wielded the power to approve or not approve applications for status / PRC within the laws as enacted.
When the function of an immigration tribunal was introduced at a much later date, the appeal process was put in the hands of the tribunal, all of who are bound to look at each application without bias and have the power to potentially override the chief immigration officer’s decision.
This is where the status “loophole” gained its hold. Now the established practice of denying status applications on the basis of 20(B)2(b) was now in question and taken to task. Bring in the CJ, a sharp immigration lawyer who knows the 1956 act, insist that the tribunal look closely at how the law was applied and bring on the applicants!
I don’t think that one set of actions created this loophole, it was just that the powers that be either didn’t appreciate or didn’t care that the subsequent amendments to the law would create an issue down the way.
I agree so they could give status to those they wanted to have it say a close personal friend of the ex premier I wonder.
LOL
Any legislation passed by the PLP stand the test of time?
Well, nice to know the OBA agrees with me. ~chuckles~
so if the OBA see no issue with PRC’s and status why are they appealing the judge’s decision
to ensure they look to be doing something nationalistic to keep some votes from the PLP of course.
for appearance sake….it makes them look good. not to do so will result in lost votes. The appeal will fail and the legislation will stay in place.
Because the opposition demanded it. If there hadn’t been a vocal outcry the OBA would probably have not appealed due to the fact that they already knew that an appeal would likely fail.
They were more likely working on a plan for immigration reform rather than wasting taxpayers’ money on appealing an already well spelled-out decision by chief justice.
Maybe because it would be political suicide to look as if they are doing nothing about it. Do you really think the OBA expects that appeal to go through successfully? Thier press release referencing QC views on the matter spoke to their supporters in that it (appeal) is likely to be unsuccessful. Them following through with knowingly meaningless appeal(at the last minute) was an attempt to appease the folks outside of their support base. Simple game theory basically…
so in other words they are hypocrites and speaking out of both sides of their mouths
That’s just as much conjecture as the comments above that suggest the PLP deliberately created the loophole.
who cares what the plp have to say
Apparently many.
Why else all the comments and disruption from the.
Irony.
The OBA are proven liars. End of discussion.
Did you somehow forget the lies your plp spewed?? I can remember quite clearly your last premier and finance minister stating our economy and finances are doing fine just before the last election??? One of the MANY lies your plp said and you seem to not mention them, why???
“we had to lie to you” ring any bells in your head
“Apologise for for calling us Xenophobic!” who was it again that made those demands in front of the Lower House…?
Who actually made that comment As I honestly can’t rememer who it was. Also while i’m on tje topicof xenophobes, are Laverne, Derrick , and Chris Furbert related in any way?
http://concernedbermudians.blogspot.com/p/uss-bermuda-how-plp-govt-communists.html
I’d like to think this link was pure fantasy….I’d like to think
The government is always saying that the two parties need to work together and this issue was an opportunity for them to do so but the government choose not to. It seemed logical to me that what the opposition was suggesting was to close the door, rethink our position, then decide on the best way forward. Instead the government chose to leave the door open while they pursue an appeal that they have been told is not a very good case. Both parties seem to agree that the issue needs to be dealt with but they cannot agree on how best to do it. The government has yet to fully explain why they appealed when at the same time they are seriously considering commercial immigration! Even if they grant status to all eligible persons (which i think they should)they still need to find a solution which fixes this issue once and for all!
Thanks @ Clearmud, what a brilliant summary.. I enjoy reading your position. It makes a lot of sense.
Bernews – will coverage of the PLP meeing be live stream?
@jt, Sorry, no. We wanted to, but can’t get a solid enough connection so the stream will keep dropping all the time…so we are recording it and will post the video later!
Thanks for covering. Is the video coming soon?
If not could you post some of the main points?
Thanks Bernews!!
don’t know what we would do without you!
We are people…of all cultural engagement….as we should be…no matter if you are african or eauropean…i personally have good friends of all walks of life….daddy ming taught me to love…if your good that is all that is required…
But…if you bring them …teach them one very important thing…half of what you see…and none of whatyou hear.
.
Guests should notbe required to make choices…these things are abundantly clear…..please people….love is stronger than anything…and should be the only pre requist.
Please, what do the OBA take the people of this country for? Idiots?
Of course they hope to get political mileage out of this current immigration situation. If the PRC’s do eventually gain their status the OBA will jump all over it come next election.
It may or may not be true that granting status to PRC’s will not have a detrimental effect on jobs as stated by some, but what about the future? This government needs to remedy the immigration problem and stop trying to lay blame squarely on the previous government. They may have caused the immediate problem that we have now with this immigration loophole, but the problem began many decades prior to the PLP taking control of the government.
The leaders of this country need to stop with the empty rhetoric about how much they care about us and start actually behaving in a manner that demonstrates it. The government must to do a better job at monitoring employers who tailor job requirements to suit the individual of their choice to rule out Bermudian applicants who may be just as suited for that same job.
The current entrenchment of positions on either side of the immigration issue will not help anyone going forward. There must be compromise on both sides.
How many of you attended the meeting? It was educational. You should have been there.
wonders how the pathetic lying party went this evening
Approximately 120 concerned citizens turned out to hear the same ole 2 & 6…(Check Bernews for confirmation)
I wonder if Kangoocar is going to give up his American citizenship and become a Bermudian? That way he won’t have to hide from the American tax man any more.
We may well be paying as much or more here before long in order to pay down your $2 billion dollars Alvin…and that includes you…if you still have your pension that is.
Does anyone here that are against the granting of status to long-standing PRC-holders have friends that are long-standing PRC-holders who you feel deserve the right to be Bermudian? Bear in mind they would be giving up their citizenship in the homeland for this…
Why should they give up citizenship? I’m Bermudian, and I hold two. I could hold three, but I choose not to. So why would I make them follow rules that I don’t? That’s not fair.
Yes, I know several PRC’s and have supported their application for status. They deserve it.
We all have two choices Up or Down ! What’s yours ?
We all need to be talking about improving a :-
Better economy.
Better cost of living .
Better financial management.
Better education.
Better health.
Better way of life.
Better social skills.
Better and safer roads.
Better attitude.
Better transportation.
Better legislation.
Better standard of living.
Better ……………….
Is that all for our children, if not who !
ENOUGH OF THE RHETORIC . . .sounds like dictatorship. You used the words in regards to the referendum on gaming . . .enough of the rhetoric; you used them on the jetgate issue . . .enough of the rhetoric; you used them when it comes to this PRC issue . . .enough of the rhetoric!!!
So are you stating as the transparent and for the people party that promised change, that you don’t want to include your people, that you don’t want to hear the concerns of your people; or are you saying that the only time you want to hear from your people is when we are in agreement with what you do?
See this is starting to sound a lot like at time long ago, when we as a people could only speak when we were spoke to and we dare not voice our opinions!!!!!