Lawyer urges gov’t not to stop PR process
(CNS): Given the number of issues impacting WORC and the local immigration system following the change in ministers and the recent appeal court ruling, local attorney Nick Joseph is urging the government not to pause the processing of permanent residency applications. With delays already mounting, he said the issues emerging over the last few weeks shouldn’t get in the way of decisions on the current backlog.
Findings by the Cayman Islands Court of Appeal that the current permanent residency points system is, in some cases, unconstitutional will take time to address, but Joseph, a partner with HSM, the local firm that brought the recent legal case, is asking the government to continue to consider PR applications in accordance with the existing system and grant residency to those applicants achieving 110 points or more.
But in view of the court’s findings, he said, applicants scoring fewer than 110 points should not be given notice to leave until a “lawful and appropriate mechanism” for considering whether their required departure would constitute a disproportionate breach of their right to a private or family life is arrived at.
“Unless the department, in refusing an applicant permanent residence, takes proportionate account of various human rights implications, notwithstanding any failure to achieve ‘enough’ points, then requiring a person to cease employment and leave the Islands could be unlawful,” Joseph warned in an updated circular to clients awaiting decisions on residency applications.
He said the Court of Appeal decision shouldn’t be allowed to form the basis for any pause in the processing and determination of applications where people have obtained sufficient points.
“Undue delays and any failure to fairly and consistently maintain and to appropriately enforce term limits poses the greatest risk to the ability of the government to adequately control immigration,” he said.
“Rights to a private/family life in these Islands will generally develop with the passage of time. Delaying the lawful determination of applications simply enhances those rights, and will conspire to make the ultimate removal of the very persons the Cayman Islands Government purports do not qualify to remain here, all the more difficult.”
The lawyers at HSM have identified and warned about what they say are various defects in the system for many years.
“We hope that the Court of Appeal decision may now finally lead to a workable, lawful system that duly protects constitutionally-enshrined rights and these Islands that we are privileged to call home. It can and must do both,” Joseph said. “Sadly, the legislation, as operated until now, has too frequently done neither.”
He said the firm would continue to engage with the authorities in the hope of working constructively through the immediate implications.
Related article: Is the PR history and culture test fit for purpose?
- Fascinated
- Happy
- Sad
- Angry
- Bored
- Afraid
Category: Local News, Policy, Politics
The government’s approach makes no sense at all. If they really want to stop people getting PR just change the law and make it harder. Ignoring the law and refusing or failing to process applications in a timely manner is a sure fire way for the government to get taken to court, at our expense and they will just as surely lose.
The problem we’re evidently now facing is that our constitution gives those who manage to have children with Caymanians certain rights to stay regardless of the PR process. On the other hand making PR harder will reduce the number of wealthy people sticking around. Probably a good situation for certain politicians but not for CIG’s finances.
I have been coming here on work permit since 2005. I have always departed after 8 years then return as I know I would not reach the points they required.
I am not a Caymanian and,I am expected to follow their rules. Why then should I force them to grant me PR. Its their country their laws .
The same way it breaks my heart to see expat coming here and taking away the beaches. Since I have been coming to this Island 2023 is the first year I have ever seen so few people camping out. A Caymanian tradition I have always love and like to see.
This is a Caymanian country and we expat cannot take that away from them.
I feel sad that this Country will no longer be for Caymanians. Perhaps Cayman need to recruite Lawyers out of England to help them review and write the laws.
It is their country and their laws. The issue is not so much what the law is, it’s that the government is simply ignoring it. That is a really stupid approach to the underlying issue. It reduces confidence in the rule of law which is core to our financial services – if the government will renege on one set of laws how can invest be confident that they won’t ignore those on which the financial industry is based when they find it convenient- and all that happens is the can gets kicked down the road u til someone with enough money decides to sue, at which point you are going to get block grants and have to pay damages. If they don’t agree with the outcome then change the law, but don’t tell people that provided they invest and put down roots that they can get PR and then blatantly ignore the laws you passed to persuade them to do that.
The lawyers from Cayman could help. The lawyers writing it and enforcing it are not from Cayman. They are not from England either!
Maybe you should read the article. Yes we’re expected to follow the law. However, and this is Mr Joseph’s point, the government must also follow the laws they write. CIG have provided a pathway for non-Caymanians to get PR and ultimately status. If expats follow the rules as laid out for them for almost a decade then it is the law that the government at least hear those applications and decide on them fairly. If they don’t then the courts will make them. If they don’t like the law they can change it but what they can’t do is ignore the law.
They ignored the court ruling not so long ago until the Governor was required to step in and fix the mess. Nothing new here.
I don’t believe that Anon at 10.54pm is genuinely an expat. If he was, he would understand the issue. Rather, he is parroting the most ignorant of the misrepresentations about this issue. That suggests that he’s not an expat – because an expat that dim wouldn’t get a work permit.
The points, which he purports to make have already been answered, see: https://caymannewsservice.com/2023/04/lawyer-urges-govt-not-to-stop-pr-process/#comment-590215.
In summary, CIG wrote the law, CIG broke the law, and now some of the dimmer commentariat are complaining that people might actually enforce the law. Do you actually want to be like Bermuda or Jamaica? That’s the way you’re going with this attitude of yours.
Sorry to be blunt, but apparently it is necessary. Cayman needs expats. Expats do not need Cayman. Look at your own (Cayman) Economics and Statistics Office (ESO) August 2022 report about how many banks and trusts moved off island compared to the previous year:
“Banks & Trusts: The total value of international banking assets domiciled in the Cayman Islands declined by 12.9 percent to US$518.3 billion in 2021 relative to the previous year. Similarly, international liabilities domiciled locally fell by 13.0 percent to US$517.5billion (see Table 4.1). The Islands’ financial system had cross-border assets of US$503.0 billion, a decline of 13.1 percent, and liabilities of $470.8 billion, a decline of 12.5 percent relative to end-2020.“
https://www.eso.ky/UserFiles/page_docums/files/uploads/the_cayman_islands_annual_economic_repor-7.pdf, page 27.
In the short term cash will keep coming, but long term best be prepared to deal with an inevitable economic slowdown. Cayman may even consider allowing expats to stand for election then, as your current politicians are plainly useless.
See today’s Financial Times article, “Singapore and Hong Kong vie to be the Caymans (sic) of Asia” which notes:
“The two cities have set up new fund structures to lure wealth away from traditional offshore financial centres… Singapore established the Variable Capital Company, a fund structure that allows a wide range of potential users to shelter large pools of capital in discreet, lightly taxed wrappers domiciled in a well-regulated financial centre… Investor take-up, particularly in Singapore, has been rapid. The bankers, fund managers and lawyers involved in setting them up say their impact could be far more widespread and more disruptive than previously imagined, drawing assets and expertise into the region… The new vehicles represent a direct challenge to traditional offshore finance centres whose success has been built on privacy and low taxes and whose economies are heavily dependent on the revenue generated by financial services… Singaporean authorities, frustrated at the tendency of local fund managers to register investment vehicles offshore rather than in Singapore itself, launched the rival VCC in 2020. It made it easier for overseas and domestic entities to register an investment vehicle in Singapore… For Singapore the rush to establish the new structures has been especially pronounced. “Prior to 2020 the vast majority of Singaporean managers had their funds in offshore jurisdictions such as the Cayman Islands, Mauritius or Luxembourg. Now the tables have turned,” says Mahip Gupta, a partner at Singapore-based Dhruva Advisors.“Since the Variable Capital Company structure was introduced, most have chosen Singapore as their fund domiciliation hub.””
https://www.ft.com/content/88e20280-bb6e-4209-ae76-d7183c60ff62, 20 March 2023.
Politicians and population, which are either too stupid or too dishonest to follow their own laws, will rapidly find their financial service industry leaves. Expat will be fine: by definition we can do jobs which Caymanians can’t do. That’s why we’re here: Caymanians in WORC conceded that we’re better than any Caymanian alternative. We can therefore escape. You can’t. Be careful what you wish for.
Some wish to kill the golden goose with no regard to the consequences. These global companies have the resources to relocate at the drop of a hat, and many more non-finance industries need expats to function efficiently, not to mention the Caymanians employed in financial services who may lose their jobs.
Without a steady supply of expats, many restaurants would close, and create unemployment for the local workforce.
Be careful what you wish for.
I disagree 3:55, – whilst there may be some impact, the majority of the restaurant workforce is expat anyway. You have to remember the local population hasn’t significantly increased, it’s the expat population which has exploded. All that’s really happening now is expats serving expats. In the days of the Crows Nest it was never an issue.
Restaurants are irrelevant. Without expats bringing in hundreds of millions of USD in the form of financial services exports and FS fees you don’t have the money to pay for the mostly Caymanian 7000 employee public sector, public education, healthcare… nothing. We make nothing and export nothing except financial services and besides a few hundred outstanding Caymanians most simply don’t have the education, qualifications or will to do those jobs effectively. Cayman, without thousands of financial services expats becomes little Jamaica in a decade.
Its Little Jamaica already! There are thousands of Jamaicans here, and many many thousands more who have married Caymanians over the years. Just look around – 50% of people look and sound Jamaican.
Are you reading this Chris Saunders..?
Realist, Reality, Anonymous, you just regurgitate the same garbage under different pseudonyms to appear there’s an opinion greater than the reality. How can you expect anyone to value what you’re saying when the motivation is so disingenuous 🕺🏾
I’ve posted as Reality rather than Realist once, but that was a typo. All the rest of the time it’s as Realist – specifically to avoid engaging in the dishonest astroturfing* which you criticise. If I wanted to post anonymously, why would I bother inputting both a name and an email address each time? It’s specifically so that people like you can engage constructively with evidence-based arguments, to demonstate where I’m wrong. You must forgive us if your failure to do so leads us to draw adverse inferences about the credibility – i.e. you have no substantive answer, what I’m saying is unpalatable but accurate.
If other people appear to agree with me, perhaps consider alternatives:
1. There are a lot of people who agree with me, and you simply don’t meet them.
2. What counts as your political class (a charitable term) has deliberately disenfranchised all expats, including status holders and their children, in an act of transparent anti-competitive corruption. Expats, including PR and status holders, therefore know that we are powerless. i.e. you are arrogangly conflating silence with agreement: many agree with me, but recognise that your corrupt politicians, like the Borg, render resistence futile.
3. There are a lot of people who agree with me, but they know what’s good for them, and since by revoking work permits via WORC, Caymanians can destroy* expats’ careers, kids’ schooling, and stability, they are kept silent in terrorem, because if they criticise CIG openly, they will be made an example of, in Voltaire’s iconic phrase from Candide (1759): ‘pour encourager les autres’.
4. Attempts by expats to dare to articular a political voice are firmly stamped down upon. Remember the Expatriate Association of the Cayman Islands (EACI)? No – it didn’t last long, as Caymanians whinged that anything other than untrammeled Caymanian dominion over expats’ lives was divisive. To be clear: since most expats have no vote, and can’t stand for election, EACI was merely a mailing list. Some Caymanians’ egos were so fragile, they wouldn’t even allow expats to have *a mailing list**.
* A friend of mine wrote this back in 2005, i.e. almost two decades ago: “Another thing to be taken into consideration is a peculiar power that Caymanians are reputed to have over the rest of us on Island. I am told that it only takes one Caymanian, any Caymanian, to have a word to the, ever fascistic, Department of Immigration to have a foreigner’s visa cancelled and have them thrown off the Island within forty-eight hours. It doesn’t matter the reason or the individual complaining – a single complaint from a Caymanian and you’re gone. This is why I’ve been warned repeatedly not to have affairs with Caymanians, if it ends badly she may never want to see me again and have the means at her disposal to achieve this.” See https://h2g2.com/entry/A4503665 and for Part 2: https://h2g2.com/entry/A4503683.
** https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Astroturf%2C%20astroturfing
I don’t believe that Anon at 10.54pm is genuinely an expat. If he was, he would understand the issue. Rather, he is parroting the most ignorant of the misrepresentations about this issue. That suggests that he’s not an expat – because an expat that dim wouldn’t get a work permit.
You need to go home Realist, you shouldn’t get PR if you’re hoping to because nobody that arrogant and elitist is a good influence in any community, – except as an example not to replicate, utterly disgusting remark
Thanks for your reply. Please address the substantive of my comment, rather than indulging in emotional incontinence. Facts don’t care about your feelings.
I said, ” That suggests that he’s not an expat – because an expat that dim wouldn’t get a work permit.”
I’ll spell out what that means, so you can rebut the point if you’re capable of doing so. Every single expat in Cayman *earned* their place here. They spent often a considerable amount of time building their resume, gaining qualifications, experience and professional ability, and then they interviewed by Zoom/Teams with, e.g. an accountancy firm in Cayman, and were awarded a job, conditional on them being better than every single Caymanian applicant. They were – quelle surprise – indeed better than every single Caymanian applicant. How do we know that? Because *Caymanians* in WORC carefully considered their application, and conceded that they were. In that context, it would be an oddly stupid expat who made points like the original poster. I don’t think such a person would have got through the obstacle course to get here. Hence my assertion.
Don’t shoot the messenger. What I’m saying is unpalatable, I agree. It’s also true. What’s more important?
Your rhetoric continually shifts from apples to oranges. Your assumption of your quasi expat being dim would correlate to not being employed in your coveted financial industry and doesn’t perhaps fit the stereotype you perceive should be here. It doesn’t matter what their skill set is, WORC’s responsibility is to ensure there aren’t any Caymanians that could fill the job, that’s it, not ‘qualifications’ as a first priority. Emotional incontinence will always be a constant when ones’s presented a rub embracing Aryan traits. It’s reassuring you recognise your stance is unpalatable, see if you can take the next step and recognise how prejudice it is as well, you’ll be better for it and therefore the community. 👍
P.S. Not that it’s relevant, but I have PR. Thank you nonetheless for your concern and kind recommendations.
My own worry is rather narrower than the comedic incompetence of CIG re. PR applications. Rather, it is the fact that CIG incompetence is making PR look increasingly worthless in the long term. It was nice to have the option to stay here, but I’m now increasingly certain that I won’t be here in 10 years time. It makes far more sense to retire somewhere else.
I think we both agree that I won’t be a loss: I’m far too blunt, and I don’t suffer fools gladly, for me to endure CIG incompetence in my retirement. You may wish to consider however what the implications for Cayman are if even PR holders are deciding that they don’t want to be here any longer than they have to be once they finish their working career.
Inciting discord purely on speculation isn’t exactly responsible is it 8:40, especially from someone previously employed in the criminal justice system 🙄
I am afraid what you say is true but there are also a lot of Caymanians who are seriously considering how they can possibly retire in Cayman. Costa Rica will happily give you a visa to live in their country as long as your income comes from abroad. You can live comfortably on US$1000 a month there plus its safe, beautiful and has a wonderful climate.
No one is forcing anyone to grant them PR, did you even read the article? People are simply asking for their PR applications to be heard and be granted or not.
Why is this issue not such big problem in other countries? I don’t see expats fighting (spending good money retaining lawyers and buying properties) what did the other countries do to find a balance for the natives and expats?
They set out fair rules and followed them. Here, the rules are legally judged to not be properly considered or fair, and even then when you do jump through all the hoops and pay tens of thousands in fees over the years…put in the application for status and wait and wait and wait and wait…then have to pay another year of fees, and wait and wait and wait etc.
The government here do not hear applications in a reasonable amount of time, hence people have to force them to do their job and follow the law by going through the courts.
New Zealand
Where foreigners cannot own land?
In 2 years you will not be a foreigner though…..
I will be if my home is Cayman.
Resident foreigners can own land and property in NZ. LOL at all the openmouthed upvotes.
I don’t get it? Foreigners can own land in NZ if they’re resident.
And before they are resident? Not so much.
Other countries aren’t so massively dependent on expats, and don’t lure them into a false sense of security, then lie to them about what the law is and engage in transparent xenophobia and jingoism in a form of Jamaican gangster ‘garrison politics’.
I’m thinking of one particular politician, but the underlying vibe is the same one which taints all of these discussions.
Other countries apply their laws consistently and fairly.
The truth is that these Islands were not made for everyone . Our past and present leaders failed to understand that by allowing large influx of immigrants to work with large firee we ign corporations on our shores would create a situation of being overpowered in numbers in wealth and now a d as ya in voice and presence. We have too many immigrants in the Cayman Islands.
We have become a Mecca for transients, for restless souls, for wealth seekers, for runaways from their living hell, for the poor and for the rich. Now we underst and economics, capitalism and pure and dimple greed of who sojourn here, many of whom never have and never will have it do good in their own native backyard . Cayman we got a problem a big one and we need to address it sooner than later or we will be placed in a Reservation. Elect the right people to lead and liberate us before it’s too late.
Reservations? Come on.
Caymanians are down with your post 131pm 100% The irony of this situation is that those who are now pushing with legislation have neither regard nor ties for these beautiful islands.
Meritless accusations
100% unsubstantiated nonsense.
Thousands of expats love this country, contribute to the economy, volunteer and donate money for charities, and love the Cayamanian people.
I would believe you if you actually spelled it correctly!
And thousands of others treat Caymanians with disdain, deny we have any culture, disregard our legal framework, and are only here for the money. The problem we have is choosing between them.
Dangerous mindset fueled by insecurity.
No. Dangerous experience fueled by a dangerous mindset.
Truth, fueled by experience.
Xenophobia
Disregard your legal framework? You’re betraying your own stupidity. Expats are demanding that you demonstrate a scintilla of competence, glimmer of legality, a mere snifter of the rule of law.
The only people “disregard[ing] [y]our legal framework” are the Caymanian government, comprising Caymanian politicians elected by Caymanian voters. Nary an expat to be see.
Call yourself Christians?
“Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.”
Matthew 7:5
Human rights aside. I think there are many expats who want to live and work in Cayman, but do not necessarily want to live here forever. But with a rollover hanging over their heads after 8 years, it makes settling for the medium term difficult, uncertain and almost too temporary.
Why are these people not allowed to simply waive this right, and be allowed to live and work here as long as they need to? Assuming they pass the immigration work permit requirements, and they have a meaningful job and are valued by their employers?
I know this would flout a bunch of laws, but it does seem like a practical approach.
You cannot waive Human Rights. That is the problem.
You can, actually. You can try to give back/disclaim any right the state grants you. Whether you can do that successfully or not depends on whether the right is for your benefit alone or the greater good. I would think it at least arguable that a person could, fully informed of their rights, agree to compromise them in exchange for something else. In this case, they would give up the right to earn the ability to remain permanently in exchange for no rollover but being on a permit indefinitely. You would only need to amend all the relevant laws to make it legal to do so. It would just be giving people options, same as we already do.
Nope. No argument. Core human rights override even individual wishes.
Human Rights re not granted by the state. They are inherent in being. Same as all being created equal. Imbued by our creator with certain rights…
None of us can change that without extreme reason (though shall not kill – except in war, though shall not detain, unless in consequence of criminal acts etc.).
Correct, only Britannia can waive the rules…
This is very sensible. There are two potential problems, neither of which is insurmountable:
1. ECHR. As you allude to, presently the Strasbourg construction of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) means that once you have lived somewhere for 10 years, you accrue the legal right to permanent residence. This is nonsensical. There is no such right in the ECHR; rather, it has been invented by activist judges. Former Supreme Court judge Jonathan Sumption criticises Strasbourg for this behaviour in his book Trials of the State, thus:
“The Convention was originally conceived as a partial statement of rights universally regarded as fundamental: no torture, no arbitrary killing or imprisonment, freedom of thought and expression, due process of law and so on. It was not originally designed as a dynamic treaty. It was the Strasbourg court which transformed it into a dynamic treaty in the course of the first two decades of its existence. Its doctrine has been that the Convention is what it calls a ‘living instrument’. The court develops it by a process of extrapolation or analogy, so as to reflect its own view of what additional rights a modern democracy ought to have. Now of course the court would not need to do this if the additional rights were already there in the treaty. It only needs to resort to the living instrument doctrine in order to declare rights which are not there.”
The right to permanent residence, to paraphrase Sumption, “is not there [in the ECHR]”. Presently, however, there is an unwillingness by the UK government to leave the ECHR. Could the problem be avoided by allowing expats to ‘contract out’ of it? Clever lawyers could draft anything, but would that be a sustainable basis on which to base Caymanian legislation, knowing that (i) any test case(s) would be at least a decade away; and (ii) there will always be chancers, criminals and the shameless willing to attempt to renege on their purported agreement.
Still, despite my scepticism about the risks, I think your idea is excellent.
2. Notional Caymanian ownership. Presently, Cayman requires notional Caymanian ownership of a certain % of businesses. I say notional, because in reality a population of 30,000 multigenerational Caymanians with a poor record of educational achievement (not a criticism, merely a fact*) is incapable of providing the skilled workers to manage, e.g. the number of accounting firms on island. The practical reality therefore is that the Caymanian ownership rules are satisfied by expats holding status.
* See “Almost 60% of Year 11 students miss 2021 exam targets, 19/04/2022, …according to the Data Report for the Academic Year 2020-21, just 40.3% of Year 11 students achieved the national standard target of five or more Level 2 subjects including English and maths.” https://caymannewsservice.com/2022/04/almost-60-of-year-11-students-miss-2021-exam-targets.
In summary, therefore, your proposal is achievable if:
1. The UK withdrew from the ECHR; and
2. Caymanian ownership rules – which don’t work anyway – are repealed.
You tell me, how likely do you reckon 1 & 2 are to happen?…
Sounds divine, – next define ‘do not necessarily want to live here forever.’ 🙄
we can’t afford to retire here
Also remember to bind their children who are born here – or is proposed the people that promise not to want to stay forever are also prohibited from reproducing?
There’s nothing to define, that’s the beauty of it.
If expatriates are allowed to stay and work for as long as they want then what would happen to all the students that study abroad and return home expecting to get a job in their field of study. That would not be right. I believe if you come to work for a period of time, when your time expires you should return to your country of origin
If expats and the companies they work for leave, you may find yourself seeking a work permit and pr in another land that is affordable to live in.
You over value yourself in the erroneous believe the expat worker is the company. Wrong Bubba.
The expat worker is a cog in the machine who gets paid to perform a task like a seal does for a fish.
After the task is complete, time for the seal to go back to the ocean.
The show will go on.
Hong Kong and Singapore have made systemic changes to become a tax haven like the Cayman Islands. They are more likely cheaper to do business in, have a first world public transportation system, and the cost of living is much much lower.
The big 4 accounting firms could leave in a heartbeat for the east, and the smaller firms could too.
Correct. Thus, the cycle of new expats coming and going will continue.
I challenge everyone calling for the continuation of Cayman’s population growth to do the same in their home countries.
The UK voted for Brexit as a result of immigration concerns.
The USA voted in Trump in large part for his stance against immigration.
Almost all of western Europe, including Germany, has witnessed a return of right-wing / nationalist political parties at the fore due to immigration concerns.
Most crucially, none of the mentioned regions are facing anything remotely similar to Cayman in respect to immigration / population increase; e.g., in my lifetime alone, Cayman’s population has quadrupled whereas the UK’s has not seen as much as a 10% increase.
The self-serving and disingenuous rhetoric must and will be challenged going forward.
The simple truth is, no one would take up the challenge, especially in the respective political arenas at it would result in their own demise as the people would rise up in opposition.
As a Caymanian who has been fortunate enough to travel the world and live in various places, I understand the appeal of the Cayman Islands.
However, not everyone who has been granted the privilege of a work permit should expect to remain permanently. Not even a majority percentage for that matter.
We have to safeguard a thriving future for our native, younger generation coming forward and quite frankly, their future trumps the real-time hopes and ambitions of foreign nationals – all of which have another place to call home and the majority deriving from the stable first world, no less.
We welcome all temporary guests with warm, open arms – however, kindly respect our laws, sensitivities, and concerns. Do carry out the terms of your respective contracts of employment and abide by our immigration laws and regulations. Whatever the case, do not “expect” to remain forever as that right is increasingly one of the most sought after in the world today.
I agree with most of what you say.
You do need to rewrite the law re. PR: it is plainly not fit for purpose. But, with respect, you are conflating two issues (or perhaps overlooking entirely the first):
1. Legitimate expectation. People who have been here for many years and who have obeyed the instructions of the Cayman Islands Government have a legitimate expectation that their applications will be handled according to those instructions. That’s the focus of this article.
2. Replacement PR system. Long term, the current PR system doesn’t work: there isn’t space for everyone who would like to live here and would qualify under the existing rules. This is where I agree with you entirely. There needs to be a wholesale redesign of the entire PR system. That must be done in a manner which doesn’t undermine either of the two pillars of Cayman’s economy: (1) financial services; and (2) tourism. I don’t presume to have a solution to that, but I agree that one is required.
Good luck – as you imply, the continued mishandling of this issue is a systemic threat to Cayman.
Why do you carry such expectations 2:06 ? Sure times have changed but when I was first here there was no expectations to get status and PR didn’t even exist. But do know you what 2:06, I was fine with that, I didn’t believe imposing my wants and steering a nation into a vision of my desires was appropriate, but like I said, it seems times have changed.
If we were having this conversation about, e.g. Somalia, or Syria, then your point would have merit: they are dysfunctional, failed countries run by illiterate and innumerate gangsters who wouldn’t know what the rule of law was if it magically transmogrified to gain personhood, strode up to the front doors of each of the governments of those benighted countries, tapped politely on the respective doorknobs, gracefully introduced itself and explained Lord Bingham’s key precepts* to the aforementioned government.
I have summarised Bingham’s principles below. Those who don’t understand them should buy and read the book. It’s only US$ 9.99, and Cayman’s future as a financial services jurisdiction depends upon politicians and voters doing so. For the slow readers at the back of the class though, the application of Bingham’s summary to the instant issue is that expats with PR applications are entitled to the benefit of the law, and the CIG must obey it.
Is Cayman a dysfunctional, failed country run by illiterate and innumerate gangsters who don’ understand what the rule of law is? Judging by some politicians, yes. Presently though – and I caveat this assertion by noting that it is only presently the case – the CIG eventually obeys the law. Sometimes it has to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to the Privy Council to beat compliance into them, but they get there eventually.
Every time however that CIG demonstrate their ignorance, their illegality, and their willingness to indulge in banana republic garrison politics, Cayman’s reputation as a trustworthy jurisdiction is wounded. Like a frog in boiling water, the jingoists and the xenophobes neither notice nor care. Eventually, however, if this continues then Cayman will succumb. A Jamaican-style collapse beckons if CIG et al don’t wake up. Many expats are already preparing contingency plans for more competently-run jurisdictions.
I trust that answers your question. Please let me know if I can provide any further information. I would, however, respectfully submit that before doing so, you (and other deigning to offer their analysis) buy and read Lord Bingham’s magnum opus.
* Lord Bingham’s summary of the Rule of Law: “The core of the existing principle,” he argued, was “that all persons and authorities within the state, whether public or private, should be bound by and entitled to the benefit of laws publicly and prospectively promulgated and publicly administered in the courts.” See Bingham, Tom. The rule of law. Penguin UK, 2011. https://www.amazon.com/Rule-Law-Tom-Bingham/dp/014103453X
No you didn’t answer the question Realist and it doesn’t really matter what Bingham says. All you’ve done is resort back to your legal context without consideration to the moral application. Essentially what you’re saying is, I don’t really care whether an influence is positive or negative, I’m adhering to the written interpretation and my entitlement. I would never have considered Cayman back in the day equivalent to Somalia or Syria nor dysfunctional. At it’s fundamental essence, Cayman was acceptably adequate until the demands of those such as yourself brought it to be influenced. Of course now would be the time to resort to overrun with mosquitos, the island that was being left behind diatribe etc. but that’s what attracted the early expats and of course ‘it’s potential’ albeit all from their perspective. Considering the majority of your posts I would say you don’t really give a ‘flying fluff’ about the underlying character of Cayman or preserving any of it, – it’s all about Realist, me, me, me.
Let’s not forget every single person here is an expat or the children and grandchildren of expats. People come here for whatever reason, they follow the laws as written by those who came before them. It is hardly unreasonable to expect the government to follow their own laws.
On the contrary, if I didn’t care, I wouldn’t bother posting anything. Cayman has many positive features – if it didn’t, we wouldn’t be here. The easiest thing in the world would be for expats to say, ‘screw you Cayman, I’ll bleed you dry then go home/elsewhere’ – because by definition, expats have a home somewhere else, and they’re employable elsewhere (or WORC wouldn’t allow us here).
I only discovered CNS last year – previously, I was a Cayman Compass subscriber, but the comments section is dead there. I’m highlighting failures in Cayman, and I suggesting that the overwhelming majority are due to the political system. You’re welcome to rebut my substantive points, but you apparently can’t or won’t.
Your references to “legal context” and “moral application” are misconstrued. Please read/watch (seriously, they’re really interesting – it’s a genuine recommendation):
– “Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty” by Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson (2018). Brilliant and engagingly written, Why Nations Fail answers the question that has stumped the experts for centuries: Why are some nations rich and others poor, divided by wealth and poverty, health and sickness, food and famine? Is it culture, the weather, geography? Perhaps ignorance of what the right policies are? Simply, no. None of these factors is either definitive or destiny. Otherwise, how to explain why Botswana has become one of the fastest growing countries in the world, while other African nations, such as Zimbabwe, the Congo, and Sierra Leone, are mired in poverty and violence? Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson conclusively show that it is man-made political and economic institutions that underlie economic success (or lack of it)… Based on fifteen years of original research Acemoglu and Robinson marshall extraordinary historical evidence from the Roman Empire, the Mayan city-states, medieval Venice, the Soviet Union, Latin America, England, Europe, the United States, and Africa to build a new theory of political economy with great relevance for the big questions of today…
https://www.amazon.com/Why-Nations-Fail-Origins-Prosperity/dp/0307719227.
The Rule of Law: Good for the Economy. Professor Sir Ross Cranston FBA, Mr Justice Cranston is a Professor of Law at London School of Economics and a retired High Court judge, formerly Labour Party politician. It is conventional wisdom that the rule of law is a necessary ingredient of economic progress. Along with an independent judiciary, individual rights, a free media, free association, strong political parties and a rich civil society, government policy asserts that the rule of law is found in all successful countries and sustainable economies. This lecture explores how the rule of law contributed to Britain’s economic development from the early nineteenth century. Video/PPT/transcript: https://www.gresham.ac.uk/watch-now/rule-law-good-economy.
One of the key requirements for national success is a positive investment climate. One of the pillars of that is respect for the rule of law. Syria or Somalia aren’t [further] impacted by its absence. Cayman is however lethally vulnerable to any perceived failures in this area. Cayman relies on tourism and financial services. Remember how covid crippled the former? A significant and sustained diminution in the perceived competence and integrity of CIG’s ability/willingness to adhere to the rule of law would destroy the latter. That doesn’t matter to many expats, as they could leave. Personally, I would rather not have to uproot my children yet again to move to, e.g. Hong Kong or Singapore – instead, I would like if CIG could please, for the love of god, evince some competence. After many years I have totally lost all faith in the current political system to do that. I simply don’t think that a system which excludes expats, and which fishes from only the most opportunistic, venal, undereducated and unqualified portion of the Cayman population is capable of generating funtioning leadership. I would argue that history proves me correct. I recognise that others would disagree, but they fail to rebut any substantive points re. the lack of public transport, Mount Trashmore, etc. That’s why I’m annoyed.
Nothing wrong with Right Wing you Western European Liberal idealist!
Yeah, facsism is in vogue
it comes as progressivism
Actually, it comes disguised as nationalism.
Actually you are wrong.
The history classes here must be awful. Read books.
Unfortunately the rise of right wing rhetoric worldwide has nothing to do with Immigration, but moreso to do with the rise of anti-them, the them being persons of colour who due to the decisions of countries such as the US and UK, are failing and have failed. It is remarkable how the UK which once gained its ascendancy on the backs of poor black people are now up in arms because those same poor black people are arriving on their shores.
As for the US, its many decisions which has literally weakened Central and South America and the Caribbean are now reaping the whirlwind so to speak
Anti them is a good term, but the issue of colour is not the issue so much as the “otherness” – the clash of cultures and beliefs. Brexit for example was focused on the exclusion of Europeans, and the immigration issues across Europe at the moment are not focused on black people. However, if you want another example of anti them, then look at Cayman.
The people downvoting this accurate post are either oblivious or ignorant of history and facts, or right wingers who support the empires of the US and UK, or they may simply be a product of the Cayman Islands educational system.
The US took tbe mantle of the evil empire from tbe UK after WW2.
The blowback from this became a reality on 9/11.
are you suggesting that your US assumed imperialism by spreading democracy mostly Cold War aligned itself with British Colonisation and resulted in 9/11 ? You’re dangerous 8:23
‘9/11 resulted from the confluence of multiple factors.
Islamic extremism was stirred by the Iranian Revolution, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the assassination of the Egyptian president. That extremism turned anti-American because of U.S. support for Israel and repressive and secular Arab regimes.’
https://www.osu.edu/impact/research-and-innovation/hahn-september-11
The US killed over 600,000 Iraquis and was meddling in the middle east for decades. Same for Indonesia, Korea, and South America.
9/11 preceded the Iraq war by around 2 years and not that it’s acceptable but the number of Iraqis killed is (even as a collective of US & allies) is no where near that, –
‘. However, we know that between 280,771-315,190 have died from direct war related violence caused by the U.S., its allies, the Iraqi military and police, and opposition forces from the time of the invasion through March 2023.’
https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/iraqi
Have you forgotten the first illegal war against Iraq led by Bush in the 90s?
Oh yeah, the one where Iraq invaded Kuwait 🤦🏽♀️
And Vietnam and Cuba
It would have been more but they’re tough to find in the mountains and jungles, respectively.
Shoutout to the NVA!
Interesting that you left out Russia, get out of here war monger and propagandist.
Be fair. Stalin’s Russia, Hitler’s Germany, Mao’s China, Tojo’s Japan, and Belgium’s Congo were all multitudes worse than the democracies you disdain, and on whose foundation you get to post anonymously.
Suppose you know nothing of the Jakarta Method.
As in over 1 million people killed in Indonesia in 1965 with backing of the US?
Suppose I do? So what? It is irrelevant. You live in a free democracy with rights assured to you by “evil” Brits and dead American farm boys on Omaha Beach. Get a grip.
Open a book to open your closed mind.
If this mindest is the result of Caymanian education, you have a toddler’s knowledge of history.
Do tell what happened on August 14, 1945 when 2 Americans, Dean Rusk and Charles Bonesteel met late one night.
Here’s a hint. 38th parallel.
To be fair, the Red Army defeated the Nazis at great losses, and was poised to defeat the Japanese until Truman unnecessarily ordered the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
We have the Red Army to thank for the defeat of the Nazis.
Well said writer! 👏 👌 👍 🙌
Canada is letting millions in and you get free healthcare for all.
not as easy anymore actually
The UK voted for Brexit for a number of reasons. For example, I voted for sovereignty, not immigration issues.
Immigration that enhances the nation is good provided it does not change the underlying culture of the existing population. It is the duty of immigrants to assimilate to the existing population and not impose their values on the existing population.
Good to have someone who can intelligently and reasonably speak on immigration matters.
One suspects that government will seize on the judgment as another excuse for delaying any decision on PR applications,or even say that they all have to wait until the PR rules are rewritten-sort of forgetting what happened last time they tried to reject an application based on a rules revision written after the application had been submitted
So explain this. People come here on a work permit to work. It seems like the majority dont like Cayman or Caymanians but they dont ever want to leave!
Exactly.
The Eagles wrote a song about it called Hotel Cayman.
You can check in anytime you’d like but you can never leave…
No, we like Cayman.
Yeah cayman is perfect minus the stupid little locals lol right
That’s the joke…
Wrong. I barely know any expats other than those I work with. I hang out with and live around generatonal Caymanians 99.9% of my spare time. They are my friends and island family. I know along SMB amd SS that arrogant attitude prevails, so not denying it’s existence. But I’ve never been like that and choose not to be part of it. I’d gladly waive all my rights to be able to stay and not go on another rollover.
It’s the money honey!
It would be an amazing place if it wasn’t so full of Caymanians, lol. Everyone says the same about rednecks in the USA.
If we had better schools and better parenting, we would have much better people for our work force. All of this importation of foreign workers would not be necessary. We need to find ways to have more qualified Caymanians available for our work force. How about it, Mr. Premier???? Where do you stand?
How do you propose better parenting and a more disciplined and less loose sex life? That is the root cause.
The person above would have benefited from better education.
You could start with better family planning education in the schools and legalized abortion.
The amazing thing is Cayman has been traveling a path from a culture with amazingly strong women who ran everything while men went to sea into the current mess of what I call baby daddy culture.
If young girls felt more empowered and saw the opportunity available to them the situation would be much better. But that starts with parenting and the schools. Government and the Private Sector need to work on a multi year plan to encourage girls and educate them about the opportunities they have.
……like…Contraception..?
A certain % of the population will never change. A more realistic option is to:
1. Stop NAU payments to single parents. You fail to keep your legs together, you suffer. Works well for Singapore. Such people serve merely as a warning for others. Guess what, Singapore doesn’t have a problem with an underclass.
2. Bribe the unproductive % of the population to get the snip – reward them for not propagating the problem.
Unpalatable? Perhaps. Effective? Certainly. What do you want: policy that sounds nice, or policy that works?
Benito Mussolini would love you.
Tradition and culture.
Not Caymanian.
1.42 your list comprises social ills imported from our neighbors fo the East.
Too many baby mamas abandoned by a culture that has been the downfall of Jamaica.
Feral parents now breeding feral children and all living off NAU.
You have3% Caymanian unemployment. Don’t worry about people coming here/staying here unless you want the economy to stop growing. Block permits and businesses will have to close.
Whose businesses? Those owned and operated by foreigners?
Every hotel could close if you block permits. Not Caymanian owned, but the tourists that won’t be staying there won’t eat in the locally owned bars and restaurants, or go out on the locally owned water sport tours, or take taxis.
It’s trickle down economics.
trickle down economics 😂 please stop spreading that propaganda.
https://mspolicy.org/trickle-down-economics-is-a-myth/
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1153421
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/courage-strength-optimism/trickle-down-economics-the-oldest-myth-from-the-oldest-president
https://www.businessinsider.com/how-bad-is-inequality-trickle-down-economics-thomas-piketty-economists-2021-12
People downvoting this have no idea of how this country works.
They rent cars and congest our roads and infrastructure and don’t pay for it.
It’s corruption economics.
The country’s economy largely depends on financial services, construction and tourism. Consider this as a three legged stool. Take one leg away and the stool falls.
Have you no clue how many Caymanians depend on the tourism industry?
Be careful what you wish for.
Why does it matter? If you work for one of those businesses (& not every Caymanian is a civil servant) then you will be unemployed. If hotels close businesses close. Hotels need expats to do the laundry/Cowan the rooms. You need an expat to look after your children/clean/mow the lawn.
Define need. More than 720 Caymanians are currently unemployed. I am willing to bet at least 100 of them could operate an industrial washing machine.
How many of those 720 are actually employable?
At least 100.
It’s not schools, it’s almost entirely parenting. Cayman school receive far more money than even the richest countries in the world.
Unsuccessful children are the way they are because of low calibre parents (often including absent fathers). Parents should be in a stable, married relationship, children must be actively supported, they must be infused with a disciplined attitude to education, and they must refrain from crime. By contrast, children from certain groups arriving in US elementary schools are often unable to speak properly, use cutlery and their general intellectual development is already 18 months behind better-parented peers. As the expression goes, “the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree”. Or, in computing terms, “garbage in = garbage out”. This explains why many recently immigrated families often have exponentially better performance than peers of similar economic status. It also explains why black Africans outperform superficially similar group in London: cultural attitudes toward education, work, police and crime are determinative. Similarly, black African immigrants in the US outperform inner city US blacks many times over. So it’s not about race, either, as some would assert.
How *do* societies prevent multigenerational failure? One simple solution: stop breeding out of wedlock. We know that kids raised outside of stables marriages perform appallingly. Successful societies are those with powerful disincentives to unmarried reproduction. Some references:
“Despite the powerful and understandable taboo on stigmatizing one-parent families, social science has now demonstrated rigorously, and causally, that children do better if they are reared from birth to adulthood by two parents from whom they are genetically descended.” The Future of Capitalism by Paul Collier, Kindle page 1,761)
—— “All forms of parenthood are not equally terrific — not for the kids. Countless longitudinal studies of actual outcomes for children (as opposed to well-meaning researchers asking kids how they feel about stuff) show that, incontestably, children have the best outcomes when they are raised by their genetic parents, who — crucially — are married. This is perhaps the one area in which science and the teachings of the church are in agreement. It is true, incidentally, even when the figures are weighted for income differentials, and it cuts across all races. Last week’s report by the children’s commissioner for England, Dame Rachel de Souza, warns that the traditional two-parent family, in which the mum and dad are the genetic parents of their kids, is rapidly becoming a thing of the past. Nearly a quarter of children born since 2000 are in single-parent households, and nearly half have been at some time in their lives. Why does the marriage thing matter? Because cohabitees are five times more likely to split up during the first three years than are people who feel their relationship is enduring enough that they subject each other to the harrowing procedure of getting wasted on a stag or hen night and then the marriage ceremony. People remarry, of course. But various studies suggest that stepdads and stepmums do not have quite the same investment in their recently acquired children, and abuse is often prevalent, no matter how often they tell you that they love little Jayden just as much as if he were their own hellspawn brat. But it is with single parents that the real problems lie, the problems we are storing up for the future. We know that, in general, kids raised by single parents do less well at school and are more likely to be impoverished, more likely to use drugs and alcohol, more likely to develop mental problems and less likely to get a well-paid job. That has a cost not just for the child, but for the state. Even ignoring that cost — which is difficult to quantify — there is the cost to the state of the single parent. On average, single mums and dads receive 66 per cent of their income from the state, and almost half are reckoned to be in so-called relative poverty. Last year the amount of money we paid out in benefits rose to £212 billion: it rises ineluctably, year after year, and will rise even more sharply in future because the offspring of single parents are far more likely to go on to be single parents themselves. It is a calamitous cost to our society, eating up a greater and greater proportion of our total welfare bill. (Rod Liddle, Saturday September 03 2022, 6.00pm, The Sunday Times)
By way of example, please read this evocative US article – it is a superb exposition of the disconnect between left-wing rhetoric and the reality of the underclass: https://www.commentary.org/articles/naomi-schaefer-riley/invisible-child-poverty-survival-andrea-elliott. The author concludes that the dysfunctional children ought to have been taken into care. I would go further and would have sterilised both parents at an early stage. The consequences of not doing so were brutal to the unfortunate children who resulted – and to hard-working US taxpayers who were forced to subsidise other people’s poor life choices.
The money goes into the buildings, and into the pockets of the builders and the MPs that approve the budgets.
Realist, – I don’t think I’ve ever read something quite like this purporting to be a broad view but runs narrowly within the perimeters of the authors own ideals. There are so many side shoots not considered, it’s awful. Step outside your little circle a little further and embrace the real amplitude besides the easy hand picked fruit 👍
Anon at 8:38pm, could you re-write your post in decipherable English, please? Many thanks in advance.
I have no idea what you are talking about, and as the poster at 07/04/2023 at 3:12 pm alludes to, nor I suspect do you. In a triumph of optimism over experience though, I’ll provide some further reading material to evidence the points in the main post, in the hope that you may both be able to comprehend them and reply intelligibly.
In summary, the benign-sounding aspiration of destigmatisation, i.e. the process by which [usually liberals/left-wingers] attempt to make something neutral or “not bad” has the unintended end result of glamorisation—making something “good” and even celebrated. This is dangerous when the reason why something (like single parenting) was stigmatised was because it doesn’t work. A certain amount of stigma can be healthy for society.
The following articles are necessarily excerpts, and I recommend that if you (or other readers) wish to learn more, then you read them in full. If, however, you simply wish to indulge in cathartic virtue-signally, untethered from reality, please ignore all of the material, just click reply, and then call me a fascist, etc. (Style tip: traditionally this is done in ALL CAPS for ‘clout’ from fellow-travellers). That, of course, won’t help anyone’s children, but I reasonably infer that is not actually the aim of those who find these facts uncomfortable.
*** THE RISE OF FATHER ABSENCE AND ITS ATTENDANT SOCIAL ILLS
“Fatherless children are at higher risk of delinquency that undermines their own prospects and disrupts the communities in which they reside…
Fathers who are engaged and competent have children who are more socially skilled, academically successful, and more likely to be socially mobile in adulthood than their father-absent peers… fathers help to keep children from going off the rails, especially during adolescence. Engaged fathers have adolescents who are more likely to stay in school and stay out of trouble (e.g., criminal behavior, teenage pregnancy) than are father-absent adolescents, after taking other factors into account.
The first point is illustrated by Steele and colleagues’ study of the relation between father absence (due to divorce or death) and 200,000 Norwegian children’s years of schooling… In an informative twist on this type of study, Gähler and Palmtag assessed the relation between divorce and Swedish children’s educational outcomes for people born in 1892 through 1991… McLanahan and colleagues’ review of large-scale studies that controlled for alternative explanations (e.g., family income) for these types of findings yielded the same conclusion: “there is more consistent evidence of a causal effect of father absence on educational attainment, particularly for high school graduation.” They concluded that father absence is also associated with increased drug and alcohol use in adolescence and unsteady work histories in early adulthood.
Geary, David C, “The Rise of Father Absence and Its Attendant Social Ills”, Quillette, 7 March 2003, https://quillette.com/2023/03/07/the-rise-of-father-absence / archive version: https://archive.is/xeWud
*** UNPALATABLE FACTS ABOUT THE IMPACT OF FATHERS ABANDONING THEIR CHILDREN:
“Broken families. Gutted communities. Betrayed women. Terrified children. Busy morgues. And overflowing prisons.
The evidence is so overwhelming that it’s not really controversial anymore. Children who grow up without their fathers—especially in communities where fatherlessness has become the norm—carry the heaviest social, economic and psychological cross social science can measure. The mountain of data is nothing short of Himalayan.
Children raised in single-parent homes constitute:
63% of teen suicides;
71% of high school dropouts;
75% of teenagers in substance abuse rehab centers;
85% of behavior disorder patients;
85% of young prison inmates;
90% of runaways and homeless children.
This is what we have to show for the trillions of dollars spent and the decades of research conducted. If there was a way for a social worker or a bureaucracy or a government check to fill the Dad-shaped hole in America’s broken families, we would have found it by now.!
Source: “Sorry Libs, You Can’t Replace Dads With Government” – June 21, 2022 at 2:53 PM by Kevin Roberts, Ph.D., https://www.heritage.org/marriage-and-family/commentary/sorry-libs-you-cant-replace-dads-government / Archived version: https://archive.is/HN2oM
*** DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW LIBERAL HAVE CENSORED DISCUSSION ABOUT THE DELETERIOUS IMPACT OF FATHERS ABANDONING THEIR CHILDREN:
“John Anderson (former deputy Australian PM) talks to British journalist, author and broadcaster Melanie Phillips about the origins of Western cultural and political freedoms, the resurgence of antisemitism around the globe and the key problems confronting the youth of today. In this excerpt, they analyse the decay of truth in relation to family, as objective reality is made to fit with one’s subjective feelings:
‘You talked about some serious work done back in the early 90s by two social scientists, Norman Dennis and George Erdos. According to this report there was incontrovertible evidence that children in fractured family units tended to die earlier suffer more ill health do less well at school we’re more likely to be unemployed more prone to criminal behaviour and to repeat as adults the same cycle of unstable parenting. […] The social science establishment, as you put it, circled the wagons. […] What has happened that it’s acceptable to ignore evidence when it impacts on others particularly our own children?’l
https://youtu.be/yw6-aNWfIns?t=282 (⬅️ link is pre-configured to begin at the correct point, though it is worth watching in full)
*** THE ‘SUCCESS SEQUENCE’:
“If you live in the First World, there is a simple and highly effective formula for avoiding poverty:
1. Finish high school.
2. Get a full-time job once you finish school.
3. Get married before you have children. <– SEE HERE!!
Researchers call this formula the “success sequence.”
https://ifstudies.org/blog/what-does-the-success-sequence-mean / archived version: https://archive.is/SYAr3
*** THE ECONOMIST (THIS IS VIDEO, SO YOU DON'T EVEN NEED TO BE ABLE TO READ 🙂
“How modern families increase social inequality”. The Economist, 18 November 2019, “Modern families with two working adults are richer than those with a single breadwinner, and can afford to take a different approach to parenting. This is exacerbating inequality between rich and poor families.”
See in particular the six and a half minutes from 11:57 to 18:29 :-
https://youtu.be/hSmAYUnZyxE#t=11m57s (⬅️ link is pre-configured to begin at the correct point, though it is worth watching in full)
says the poster pushing a heavily right biased media source.
Tell us your thoughts on abortion rights. ‘I would go further and would have sterilised both parents at an early stage.’ – clown
https://www.allsides.com/news-source/commentary-magazine-media-bias
Play the ball not the man. Address the issues in the article. Schaefer’s book, Invisible Child, is a hagiographical account of a perpetually failed family in which evolution has been thrown into reverse.
If you’re an expat, then you’re a hypocrite because you’ve moved to a very low-tax jurisdiction rather than embracing the de facto socialism in your home country. If you’re a Caymanian, then fair enough, you haven’t been exposed to a collapsing Western welfare state. Either way, I’ll demonstrate what you failed to do. Here’s one of the quotes from the Commentary article which evidences that money is not the issue here:
“If only Dasani’s family had money, Elliott implies throughout her meticulously reported work, they would have been fine, or at least better. Dasani’s mother and stepfather would have been able to care for Dasani and her seven siblings. They would have been able to find a stable place to live and feed their children. That would have presumably enabled them to stop stealing clothing and other items, and that would have allowed them to pass criminal background checks and get jobs. And all of this would have ensured that the Administration for Children’s Services would have never removed their children from their custody.
Which is why it’s so jarring to find out 50 pages later that Dasani’s mother inherited $49,000 when her own mother died. Did that change the life of Dasani’s family? For a brief moment, it seems. They moved out of the homeless shelter system and into subsidized housing. But then things quickly spiraled out of control. And as a careful reader will learn again and again in Invisible Child, poverty is not the root of the problems in Dasani’s family—and simply giving them money is no solution.”
I worked in the criminal justice system and saw many such families such as this. People like you seem to enjoy revelling in your self-professed liberal superiority, which eschewing any information which threatens to undermine your carefully curated MSNBC/CNN/New York Times bubble. You betray your intincts by ignoring the substantive issue, and focusing on the fact that Commentary magazine is allegedly ‘right’wing’. That you consider this to be relevant, let alone an indictment, renders your judgement worthless I’m afraid. Some of us are trying to live in reality, not indulge wishful thinking fantasies.
If you’re right leaning it has to be assumed your pro -life as well. Shouldn’t a party of forced birthing be stepping up to the plate to subsidise those by way of the the law they’ve put into effect ?
So what is ‘the substantive issue’ I’m ignoring Realist, foregoing compassion and doing what Naomi Schaefer Riley implores instead ? – ‘But the truth is that Dasani and her siblings probably should have been taken away from their parents a long time ago’.
Besides preaching dogma in an above post, the problem with your stance and your reality is just that, it’s yours. I’ll concede on some of research but pushing an agenda with inert knowledge demonstrates your non malleability and resistance to look beyond what you think you see. Liberal opera glasses may not give a broad view of the stage, but when they’re being used we’re also listening. If someone had listened to the kids instead of ‘I know what’s best’ perhaps they might be alive today.
https://www.texastribune.org/2023/03/14/texas-child-welfare-removal-hart-family-deaths/
Apologies for my delayed reply – I just saw this. Your inference about my position on abortion is not totally unreasonable, as I accept that political polarisation, accelarated by social media, has corralled UK and US societies into vocal extremes [1].
That is not my position though. I have donated to abortion rights organisations for most of my adult life. I therefore did not want to leave the allegation unaddressed.
I am firmly in the ‘pro-choice’ camp. I like the Clinton-era formulation that abortion ought to be ‘legal, safe and rare’.
_________________
[1] E.g. see:
Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010, Charles Murray. NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLER: A fascinating explanation for why white America has become fractured and divided in education and class, from the acclaimed author of Human Diversity. “I’ll be shocked if there’s another book that so compellingly describes the most important trends in American society.”—David Brooks, New York Times. https://www.amazon.com/Coming-Apart-State-America-1960-2010-ebook/dp/B00540PAXS
David Goodhart’s seminal essay, “Too diverse?” in 2004 asked, “Is Britain becoming too diverse to sustain the mutual obligations behind a good society and the welfare state?” https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/essays/59131/too-diverse .
Goodhart’s 2017 book, “The Road to Somewhere: The New Tribes Shaping British Politics “offers the best and most complete explanation I’ve seen for why things seem to be coming apart in so many countries at the same time.’ https://www.amazon.co.uk/Road-Somewhere-Shaping-British-Politics-ebook/dp/B071L9N9BB
Jonathan Haidt has also written a lot about this.
Further to my comments above, a compelling article summarising the phenomena of dysfunctional families, focusing on unsuitable fathers, was published last month. It is worth reading. Please see:
“The Rise of Father Absence and Its Attendant Social Ills” Fatherless children are at higher risk of delinquency that undermines their own prospects and disrupts the communities in which they reside. … Fathers who are engaged and competent have children who are more socially skilled, academically successful, and more likely to be socially mobile in adulthood than their father-absent peers. The interpretation of these correlations is not straightforward, however, because competent men tend to marry competent women. These competent mothers, along with genetics, play a role, but they are not the whole story. Among other things, fathers help to keep children from going off the rails, especially during adolescence. Engaged fathers have adolescents who are more likely to stay in school and stay out of trouble (e.g., criminal behavior, teenage pregnancy) than are father-absent adolescents, after taking other factors into account. …
https://quillette.com/2023/03/07/the-rise-of-father-absence (Paywalled).
Non-paywalled copy: https://web.archive.org/web/20230309124216/https://quillette.com/2023/03/07/the-rise-of-father-absence
‘It’s not schools, it’s almost entirely parenting. Cayman school receive far more money than even the richest countries in the world‘
And why do you think that is, – couldn’t have anything to do with a population that’s being marginalised by an expat population outnumbering them by approx 200% could it ? Have you ever considered the root of the problem may be yourself and the striving for change to suit your own dynamics, – I’ll guess probably not.
‘Numerous research studies pinpoint American Indians to be the one ethnic group with the highest level of trauma10 exposure through violent victimizations nationwide. American Indians are victims of rape, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault at an annual rate that is 2.1 times higher than the African American population, 2.6 times higher than for White Americans, and 4.7 times higher than the Asian American population. Additionally within the American Indian population, self- destructive behavior rates are high, especially within reservation communities; in particular, behaviors such as suicidal ideation, suicide attempt, and completed suicide.
8 As noted in Byers (2006), Brave Heart (1999) defines “historical trauma” as the present reactions of American Indians to the violence endured by previous generations in the form of imprisonment, loss of ancestral land, removal of tribal children to attend boarding schools, and violence.
9 Self-perception is described as the cognitive structures that comprise self value, self concept impacts attributions that create emotional responses that then affect behavior (Byers, 2006).
10 A traumatic experience is a disastrous or an extremely painful event that has severe psychological and physiological effects. Traumatic events include personal tragedies such as being the victim of violence, or a life-threatening experience (Halgin & Whitbourne, 2010).
Nelson 55
Within this population in 2001, the prevalence rate for suicide was 1.5 times the national rate. The main risk factors found for attempted suicide are stressful life events, definitive psychiatric disorders such as depression, and alcoholism (Hill, 2009). Specifically, from the research by Hill (2009), she logically asserts that suicide attempts indicate substantial psychological suffering, and probable alcohol or substance abuse. For this, she blames the influential factors to be cultural devastation, and high rates of multiple losses experienced through intergenerational mental, emotional, physical, and sexual abuse commonly found in American Indian population.
https://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1027&context=chc_theses
Apologies for my delayed reply – I just saw this.
No, with respect I disagree. In my view, your argument is a smokescreen to obscure the real problem of poor parenting/poor calibre parents.
We won’t agree on this point, and I’m not a politician (I’m ineligible, of course), so all I can do is wish you luck.
And how exactly would you replace 25000 work permit holders with Caymanians? And who would do all the dirty and hard jobs that we import foreign labour to do?
The question that no one can answer honsetly.
Truth be told, replacement would not be necessary.as most of the larger companies would leave and restaurants and most stores would close.
someone talking sense at last…thank you nick.
imagine if we let people of his ability run for office???
Why can’t he run? Wasn’t he born here? He is def Caymanian!
His grandad needs to be Caymanian. The
Because pi##-poor Caymanian politicians know that if they faced any competition from vaguely competent, semi-qualified individuals, they would be rightly eviscerated at the ballot box (particularly if they allow expats to vote, too).
Consequently, expats can neither vote nor stand for office, and you are doomed to rule by the bottom 10%. Those who fail at school, who can’t get proper jobs, and who have nothing to offer instead run for office, and you are led by morons.
The only exception appears to be Wayne Panton, but sadly he is effectively impotent because he only has idiots to appoint to “cabinet”. Saunders? Jo Jo? You’re doomed, because of your own chauvinism and refusal to fish from a wider talent pool. It is so bad, so awful that would be funny if it didn’t have such terrible consequences for Cayman.
On the other hand, no Caymanians seem to want expats to have the vote or to be able to stand for office, so you get what you deserve:
“For they sow the wind
And they reap the whirlwind.”
Hosea 8:7
See https://caymannewsservice.com/2023/03/premier-admits-widening-of-caymans-economic-success-gap/#comment-587383, where this is discussed further.
Many good points – but do not forget Andre Ebanks, (and Marco Archer and Winston Conolly). They are world class professionals with the capacity to be Statesmen.
CIG legal team will have their own view.
As the learned English judges constantly remind them, their view of often wrong.
Let’s hope it is not too self serving. Awfully convenient that they, and their families, are all exempt from our immigration laws, and they and their spouses can stay indefinitely (or long enough to develop a human right to remain forever). Must be great.
As a Caymanian, I support Joseph’s reasoning, but like wiping down a dirty countertop, you then have to clean the whole kitchen. We should hope for that too.