Immigration nets 45 offenders

| 04/09/2010

 (CNS): Immigration officials said on Friday that they have arrested 45 people for more than 50 immigration offences since the amnesty ended. Although the number of cases it is bringing to court was not revealed, the immigration department said it has already collected fines amounting to $24,650 from offenders and their employers. One person was arrested for overstaying for almost two years, 16 others for shorter periods of overstaying and the remaining 28 were arrested for offences such as making false representations, causing another person to overstay, having an altered passport, and obstruction. In the wake of the amnesty the department warned it would now be cracking down on offenders.

“Since the amnesty ended, enforcement officers have been busy conducting operations to detect over-stayers and illegal workers, and carrying out investigations into reports the department has received of suspected immigration crime,” said Chief Immigration Officer Linda Evans.
 
As only one employer took the opportunity during the amnesty to cancel a work permit for a worker who was unemployed or underemployed, Deputy Chief Immigration Officer for Enforcement Gary Wong said officials were now looking at business owners and residents that may be committing this type of offence.
 
He said the immigration department, together with other law enforcements agencies, would continue to actively pursue employers and others who were committing immigration offences, and they would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and deportation would be recommended where appropriate. The maximum penalty for overstaying is a fine of $20,000 and imprisonment of up to five years. The penalties for work permit offences range from CI$5,000 to $15,000, and imprisonment of up to one year.
 
The recently arrested offenders came from a diverse range of countries, including Jamaica, Honduras, Cayman, Canada, America, Britain, the Philippines, India, Holland and South Africa.
 
Prior to the clamp down the department had offered a month long amnesty, which was used by 87 persons who took advantage of the opportunity to leave the Cayman Islands during July without any repercussions. During the month 67 male and 20 female overstayers departed without prosecution.
 
By nationality, 50 were from Jamaica, 10 were from the United States, four from Canada, and three or fewer overstayers were from Honduras, Nicaragua, India, South Africa, Colombia, Cuba, the Philippines, Costa Rica, Guyana, Panama, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, and the United Kingdom. Evans commended all who contributed to the success of the amnesty, and thanked the public for its cooperation.
 
People who are overstaying or committing other immigration offences should contact the Immigration Enforcement Section, or they will be arrested when they attempt to depart.
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Category: Headline News

Comments (74)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Immigration is working hard. Too bad more support is given to the Police Service rather than them who have to screen and protect our borders from the criminals

  2. Anonymous says:

    Is there anyone who knows how many jamaicans, filipinos,indians,hondurans on work permit  now? Didn’t they deny 4000-5000 work permits already? Has anyone have a updated website or FOI request?

  3. Anonymous says:

    Is this where Cayman is headed or are we already there? There should be no one in Cayman unemployed when we have a person on a work-permit for the job.

    9/3/2010 11:49:00 AM
    Labour Day special

    Trapped in labour limbo
    Highly paid, white-collar expats push up rents. Poorly paid, blue-collar expats push wages down. Where does that leave Bermudians?

    http://bermudasun.bm/main.asp?SectionID=24&SubSectionID=270&ArticleID=47906

    • Anon says:

      Really? And is the only qualification to be Caymanian? Do you own a business? Will you only hire Caymanians qualified or not to make your point? I think not. This is not a Expat Caymanian issue, it’s a qualification and attitude issue.

      However, I say we get rid of all the expats in Cayman, all of them. Oops, there go the businesses too. now we are all unemployed. Wait, lets go crabbing, Expats are now gone so it onlly leaves our fellow Caymanian for us to attack. Lets get em! Maybe we can get a dozen before church starts.

      • Anonymous says:

        Just like being an American is one of the core primary requirements for being hired in the united States, or being European in Europe, or Russian in Russia, or Canadian in Canada…. and in each of those places effective training and mentoring is in place to provide for a transfer of skills because (unlike here) they cannot be so readily imported.

        • Macman says:

          In the USA, Canada and Europe you have a labour pool who are realistic. THey know they have to learn a trade or profeesion from the bottom up. Here too often young Caymanians want a job behind a desk in an airconditioned office with little to do, a fancy title and good salary…just because they are  Caymanian.

          When will all the complainers realize…it is expensive and takes more effort to employ an expat and then after seven years you loose a good employee!

        • Man says:

          When will we learn that we are a very small country on this planet and cannot compare ourselves to the more developed countries? If we want to return to life before Banking and Tourism then say so, but please, do not have the audacity to think that we are capable of owning the businesses that make this country work. Do not compare 55 thousand people with a substandard education system and poor parenting for 80% of the children with a more developedcountry that has millions of citizens and social systems that are light years ahead of ours.

          And PLEASE, stop lying about why we are unemployed, we are unemployed because we have no skills including manners and respect for other humans. We have really bad attitudes on and off the job. Every single college educated professional Caymanian is excelling in the work place, those who are not need to check their expectations. Being educated and Caymanian is NOT a qualification for executive positions, that journey is a ten year process, not four. So to all you non-skilled people out there now finding it difficult in this Global Economic recession, guess what? Your Mama told you this day would come, the day when an education would be needed to cut grass as mine use to say. Now, you have to reduce your expectations and standard of living, that is what economist call substitutes. No more steak, eat chicken, then sardines, cut the A/C off, give up the cell phones, stop traveling overseas, sell your boat, sell one of your cars, reduce your living cost and stop playing the blame game. The rest of us are having to do so GLOBALLY.

          A Loyal Caymanian.

          • Anonymous says:

            I know a Caymanian who has a BS in a business field and does not work because they do not want to work in a 9-5 job anymore. That is "not them", so they do nothing. That, to me, is the problem. Just not using their God given brains and talent needless to say their education. So, in comes the expat, willing to work 40 hrs. a week and takes that job and the Caymanian complains about it. I am pretty sure it is the same thing with the hospitality field and fast food restaurants. Those jobs are seen as below Caymanian status when in fact they could start out there and end up as managers. IMO.

        • Anonymous says:

          Where did you get that idea!

           

          It is NOT the case in the UK. British people are thrown out of work all the time and replaced by foreigners; either imported into the UK or work exported to places like India.

          The only skills transfer and mentoring going on is British people having to train their foreign replacements.

          • Anonymous says:

            I said "Europeans" – not Britons… The UK specifically opened its workplaces to workers from all of Europe.

    • Anonymous says:

      This is plausible.

  4. Dennis says:

    Great work we have been watching to see how the new CIO and her new managment team would deal with the enforcement matters and so far they have been doing just great.

    The amnesty was a great idea and the Department has made do on their promise to hit those who did not take up the amnesty hard and from this story they have.

    Keep up the good work and continue to keep us safe.

  5. peter milburn says:

    Just a quick comment.Well done Immigration Department and keep up the good work.One thing that I read in the report that concerns me and that is the possible imprisonment of offenders if found guilty.Most if not all will probably NOT be able to pay the fines but putting them in prison is in my opinion not the answer as this will only cost us more than its worth to house them.Just send them back to their respective countries or if that is not possible due to lack of funding on their part  or ours then the people that have been "Keeping"them should be forced to pay the cost.

    • Anonymous says:

      Congrats Immigration, but you also need to look for those ones that have Work Permits with one Individual and is not working for that said person but with other people, and most of the time that permit holder has to pay money weekly to the person that took out the work permit. Sometimes too the employee is working for the employer but also for many others without approval from immigration.

      • Anonymous says:

        You are absolutely right. This should be very interesting as the main culprits of this are employers that bring people to Cayman, knowing they don’t have full time employment for the employee. Oncethe employee arrivers here, the employers tells them to go and get work elsewhere. Most times the new employee doesn’t even know this is illegal. If we assume Jamaican domestics make up many of these employees (statistic not prejudice) and that for ten years now Immigration’s policy is that only Caymanians can hire Jamaican domestics, then who may I ask is breaking the law? I hope everyone can see the answer is both parties. One must pay a fine and the other must leave.

        • Anonymous says:

           Actually, the workers themselves go around asking people to take out permits for them so they can stay when their work permits are up.

      • Tracy from Swamp says:

        Sure, and Charity begins at home, check Immigration back door first. LOL!!

    • Anonymous says:

      Sounds good – but where is the deterrence. A worker can be here illegally, send all their money away by quick cash, say they have no money, and the worst that happens is a free ride home courtesy of the Caymanian people. That sounds like a reward to me.

      Some substantial fines and imprisonment are required on occasion, but those that have been concealing them should be the ones that have to pay for the costs.

      • Anonymous says:

        First, let me say, "Good Job, Immigration. It’s about time!".

        For far too long, there have been immigrants here on work permits with no work to do because the "supposedly employer" has only obtained the permit as a favor to the ‘supposedly employee". The supposedly has to go around looking for a "days work" to be able to eat.  I have heard that there are immigrants who live in the bushes and sleep on cardboard here in Cayman because they are not working and can’t afford a place to live.  They are just barely getting food to eat.  Yet, they are here on a work permit! That is not right!

        Don’t get me wrong, now, because I have nothing against the workers who come to Cayman to make a better living for themselves and their families. BUT…..it needs to be handled the right way and whether or not we agree with the current immigration laws or not, it is still the law and we must obey the law!

        I agree with the stance the immigration has now taken where they are penalizing the employers as well as the employees.

        On the note of repatriation, immigration already holds a "non-refundable" repatriation deposit from every employer for each work permit for the purpose of repatriating employees who do not have the means to buy an airline ticket to go home, so the burden of that expense has already been placed on the employer.

         

        • noname says:

          Cayman Islands is a small place for someone to be living in bushes and not discovered. We have a million dollars helicopter here operating on a million dollar budget, why not use it to discover these hiding place of these illegals. Again if someone knows about these hiding places how come they don’t tell it to the authorities? There are some illegals here but I don’t think the situation is that bad.. I think someone is overstating the facts. You realise that cayman could fit into Florida state more than 30 times? (just estimating) or in the parish of St mary 4 times?

          • Anonymous says:

            Actually if Cayman is approx. 100 sq.miles it would fit into Florida 657 times (Florida is 65754 sq. miles)

            • Rorschach says:

              Hey, Hey,…don’t forget the .54….why unna ALWAYS trying to take something away from us???

              • Hallowe'en Jack says:

                Don’t post things like 0.54 on CNS.  Dennie will think you are talking about the calibre of a gun. 

  6. Anonymous says:

    Congratulations Immigration. This is key not only to our security but also the stability of our economy. Please make sure that all relevant people involved are pursued, including the employers and friends and relatives who have knowingly assisted persons to remain illegally – and where you detect other breaches of law, from pensions to health insurance to planning, please report it to the other relevant authorities.

    There needs to be not only detection and prosecution, but effective deterrence, for the ultimate benefit of everyone here (Caymanians and Expatriates alike)

    I take it all 45 have now either paid a fine and left,or will have to leave (if convicted) after a pending prosecution?

    • Anonymous says:

      4 People are actually voting against the law being upheld impartially so far. Is that indicative of how widespread the problem has become?

  7. Anonymous says:

    its about time…we need more border control such as a finger print system we would find out that we gave people status that r really criminals in other countries

    • Anonymous says:

      Do you have proof of this? If you have proof, why haven’t you reported it to the authorities? If you have reported it to the authorities why hasn’t something been done about this? Or are you just spreading hatred?

      • Anonymous says:

        Well think about this 3000+ ppl got status without any background checks..I”m pretty sure we have got a few criminals on our hands from that christmas give a way

        • Anonymous says:

          Anonymous 18:05. when the grants were being issued there was a case going on at the same time of two individuals overstaying for five years. It was front page newspaper article at the time.

          They were in court being tried for the crime and their lawyer told the judge that he could not charge them because they had status. The judge replied they may have it now and I cannot do anything about that but up until this time they were committing a crime. Hence they were fined.

          And there are many other stories that many will not admit to.

          I dont know how many criminals got in but I do know it was handled in a very sloppy unprofessional manner. I had a Jamaican helper at the time and she was told to just bring in her name. No supporting paperwork.

          • Anonymous says:

            They must have been friends of influential Caymamians, and that is all that matters here. Not truth, not integrity, not justice, not human riights. Sometimes I’m ashamed that I’m Caymanian / Christian.

        • Anonymous says:

          Pretty sure? That’s your proof? Look, I agree 100% the way the 3,000 was done was wrong. However, it was fellow Caymanians who penned the lists. The lists were completed with references from other fellow Caymanians. By default, these Caymanians have been looking out for themselves and friends. The expats, with no Caymanian connections, who heard rumors of a possible give away were standing in line at the police station to get clearances. However, they were only hoping for a pie in the sky as the status’ were already given out.

          Again, I don’t agree with how it was done, but isn’t it time it was accepted? How many Caymanian families are being offending when 3,000 are blamed for all bad deeds. Its hurtful and divisive for the country. No good can come from it and each time it is mentioned, the country takes a step backward. Would you have rather England give out the 3,000 because that is what would have happened instead?

          • Anonymous says:

            "Would you have rather England give out the 3,000 because that is what would have happened instead?"

            It really annoys me when people repeat this nonsense as if it is true. 3,000 was an arbitrary number decided upon by the UDP govt.at the time. It had  little to do with human rights issues as many in the list had not reached the 10 year residency mark and many others who did reach the 10 year mark were not granted.

            People putting names on lists is not the issue. The Govt. was not compelled to grant status to anyone whose name appeared on a list and in fact did not so but instead discriminated aribitrarily.    

            No good can come from repeating lies.   

            • Anonymous says:

              Please enlighten us. The UDP woke up one morning and decided to give 3,000 people status for no reason whatsoever? Wow, what a generous bunch.

              • Anonymous says:

                I am sure you are not as dimwitted as your post suggests. Obviously saying that it was not required by some directive from the UK is not the same as saying that it was for "no reason whatsoever". It may well be as it has been suggested that the UDP was creating Caymanians whose support it felt it could rely upon to win elections. If so, then it worked. 

                • O'Really says:

                  If I recall correctly, the UDP lost the election in 2005, so it certainly didn’t work then.

                  What is more, as we both know, obtaining status does not immediately entitle the holder to vote. This requires the grantee to be pro-active in meeting the criteria required to be an elector. I for example, do not have the right to vote. I seriously doubt that enough mass grantees have obtained the right to vote to sway an election, but this is of course speculation, just as your suggestion as to the purpose of the grants in the first place is speculation.

                  • Anonymous says:

                    Largely because the people making the grants knew so little about what they were doing they actually believed that if you were Caymanian, you could vote. The disgust of the "true" Caymanian people as to what they had done and how they had done it was why they lost.

                    They were power mad, and wielded it. Absolute power…

                  • Anonymous says:

                    Not mere speculation. One only had to attend a UDP meeting or rally prior to the last election to recognize that there was a large representation of newly minted Caymanians – enough to sway an election.  

                    If one must make any political sense out of the UDP status grants – and their decisions are always driven by politics even when it results in some good – then I don’t see that there are any other options for a reason. Absent that we are left with utter stupidity.    

                    • O'Really says:

                      I have occasionally attended political rallies and I can’t vote. Political rallies are a show. You don’t think people attend who are unable to vote? Unless you knew each "newly minted Caymanian" personally, knew they did indeed have status, knew they also possessed BOT citizenship and also knew how they were going to vote, I suggest you may be speculating a little.

                      You continue to ignore the fact that to be eligible to vote here, one must also be BOT citizen, a process governed by the British Nationality Act and authorised by the FCO. I have strong doubts that many of the grantees would be bothered to go through this process just to repay BigMac with a vote, but again, I am speculating. At least I recognise when I am doing so.

                    • Anonymous says:

                      Free Food.

              • Anonymous says:

                It was done to buy votes.

                And we saw that plan come to fruition in the last election.

                The last election was the first time that non-indigenous voters could sway the results of an election in the Cayman Islands, but it won’t be the last. The genie’s out of the bottle now.

                Ask someone about the days after the election when ‘new caymanians’ were cheering that they had put the UDP in.

            • Anonymous says:

              Unless you can prove otherwise, and I’m more than willing to listen, I have to go with the council I received from Cabinet Members on this one.

              • Anonymous says:

                i.e. you are repeating an attempt at spin from the UDP Govt.

                I suggest you engage your brain and assess what you are being told to see if it makes sense rather than mindlessly repeating nonsense because it came from a Cabinet Minister. I have already pointed out a couple of reasons why it does not make sense. 

                If indeed there had been such a demand from the UK Govt:

                (a) Undoubtedly the Cayman govt. would have made a policy announcement that it was being required to do so by the UK Govt. It would not have been a secret which leaked out. It would have been a transparent process. It is in the interests of the UK for it to be seen to be pursuing good governance in the territories.

                (b) The policy announcement would have set out objective criteria and invited those eligible to apply thus creating a level playing field. The criteria would have matched the UK human rights concerns, e.g. a minimum period of residence of 10 years.  

                (c) ALL of those granted would have met the same objective criteria so that there would have been no grants to persons not resident in the Islands, or resident here for a relatively short period

                (d) the grants would not have EXCLUDED anyone who did meet the objective criteria. Many people who had been here for 12+ years were greatly offended that they did not receive a grant while persons here for only a few years had.

                (e) There would not have an arbitrary number of grants and without satisfactory background checks. 

                (f) The UK would not have required huge numbers to be granted in a single grant but instead implemented over a number of years. It would have been sufficient to see that the process had commenced.  

                Clearly, the mass status grants did not reflect any of the above. Most important, human rights concerns could NOT have been met where persons who were here for at least the 10 years normally required under international law were arbitrarily excluded from consideration. 

                Stop drinking the Kool Aid. 

                      

                • Anonymous says:

                  I don’t have an affiliation with any UDP minister, much less UDP cabinet member. So, unfortunately, your assumption is incorrect. 

                  Perhaps you should read OReally’s post. 

                  The way I see it , if the Cayman government had made a policy announcement it would NEVER have had the chance to give out status in such an underhanded manner. Indeed, had they made the announcement, they would have been forced to be honest about it. It was intentionally kept quiet simply so they could win political favors. The negative effect it would have on our society, I’m sure, was never contemplated. But then again, it could be the Kool Aid talking. 

                   

                   

                  • Anonymous says:

                    Now you’ve lost me. The only Ministers who could have had any direct knowledge of any directive from the UK to grant status would have been the UDP Ministers who were in office at the time of the 2003 grants, so that was a natural assumption to make. Are you suggesting that after coming into office the PPM Ministers then discovered a Directive from the UK Govt. and came and told you about it? Even if they had discovered such a Directive you can be absolutely sure they would not be letting that on to anyone, and if there had been one you could be d**n sure that the UDP would have been waving that from the roof tops.  

                    I don’t see that O’Really’s post adds anything. 

                    We are in complete agreement in respect of your last para, but I am not sure how it fits with anything you said previously.     

          • Anonymous says:

            England did not require a single grant to be given – that is an urban myth generated after the fact by the UDP to try and defend the indefensible. – And yes, I would have much rather England had done it. Only the deserving would have received it and there would be no opportunity for corruption.

            • O'Really says:

              Not exactly an urban myth. Here is a link to the case where it was determined in 2002 that the moratorium on status grants which had been in force since January 1991 was illegal.

              http://www.caymanjudicial-legalinfo.ky/judgments/Cayman-Islands-Law-Reports/Cases/CILR2002/CILR020188.aspx

              I would not argue that the mass grant was an appropriate way to deal with the consequences of this decision, but significant consequences there would have been. Exactly what we’ll never know now.

              • Anonymous says:

                The result would have been that the Boards be required to grant status to deserving applicants – but that would have meant that no one party could benefit from the votes of the recipients – and that only people who had lived here for a long time and met the criteria would receive it.

                • O'Really says:

                  Status alone does not convey the right to vote. If it did, maybe the UDP would have won in 2005.

                  I have posted elsewhere on this threadthat the timing of the mass grants following the judgement I referred to above is not, in my opinion, coincidence. I writing this, I could be easily persuaded that the UDP sought to maximise political capital and retain as much control as possible in a situation where, rightly or wrongly, they believed the floodgates had been opened. But this is not quite the same as viewing the UDP’s decision as purely Machiavellian.

              • Anonymous says:

                Err… that case merely decided that the moratorium on status grants had been illegal. Subsequent to that the Immigration Board did re-commence the grant of Caymanian status by applying the accumulated quota for the years of moratorium.  The case said nothing about the legality of the quota itself. It really has nothing to do with the issue which is whether the UK had directed that the UDP must grant 3,000 persons status in short order or they would do it for them.  At best govt. would have had to demonstrate that it was taking the necessary steps to grant permanent rights to long time residents.   

                • Anonymous says:

                  Demonstrate to who? And why? 

                  • Anonymous says:

                    Please try to keep on track. If you read the thread you will see the discussion related to the UK’s deep concern about the human rights breach in not granting long time residents permanent rights and its supposed directive that the UDP Govt. must immediately grant status to 3,000 persons. 

                    Clearly then it would have to be demonstrated to the UK for the purpose of satisfying its concerns.     

                    • Anonymous says:

                      You stated "Clearly then it would have demonstrated to the UK for the purpose of satisfying its (UK) concerns." The purpose of my questions was to bring this out exactly. Thank you. Others are arguing England had nothing to do with the granting of 3,000. That it is merely UDP propaganda to justify their act. But then again, having kept on track, you already knew this.

                • O'Really says:

                  Err…. I know all that.

                  Let’s say I find the timing of this judgement in the context of the mass grants, coupled with the potential inherent in the decision to expose any CI government to a significant number of actions for breach of human rights over an 11 year period, as significant. I do not suggest that the UK was involved in the decision, but I do suggest the threat of the UK becoming involved, whether real or imagined, could well have been a factor, hence my comment "not exactly an urban myth." You don’t accept this view, that’s fine.

          • Anonymous says:

            Wrongly or rightly it happened already, so we have to take it and run with it and make sure it don’t happen like that next time. It makes no sense to hold grudges and perpitrates hate. We are in the era of the Huma Rights Act of the UK which was adapted from European Convention of Human Rights and from the EC commission on Human Rights. Our Constitution has a provision for Human Rights. We are not an Independent Country and it does not seems that we are heading in that direction anytime soon.Neither are we going back to the "Island that time forgot". Its a "global village". We have trading relationship with many countries and we cannot ignorre what they might think about our actions one towards another.Ian Smith’s Northern Rhodesia could not. Neither could Peter Botha’s South Africa. World opinion and other pressures both brought them down to managable levels. Lets live togather in harmony ,protect what we have and live in peace with our new Caymanians neighbours

        • Anonymous says:

          Caymanians were asking for a count on those that got Residence /Status during the PPM last tenure. I heard it being asked many many times on the radio talks with No answer. We are still awaiting, also how many since the UDP reign. I bet this is frightening.

          • Anonymous says:

            Obviously the law was changed by the PPM Govt. so that there could be no more mass status grants by Cabinet. In so far as there were status grants/permanent residency grants in the period between May, 2005 and May 2009 this would have been granted by the Caymanian Status and Permanent Residency Board in accordance with the Immigration Law and Immigration Regulations including the point system originally designed by the UDP govt. in the case of permanent residency. But rather than trying to create smoke in the hope that others will assume fire, why don’t you place a FOI request? In any event, regardless of the number of grants, the point is that any grants were done in accordance with the law, and not by secret lists without applying any objective criteria or background checks. We cannot have any legitimate complaint where expats pass the tests that we designed for them to be awarded a grant.           

        • Pauly Cicero says:

          Apples and oranges. Grantees were either already here or received the grant and were eligible to come here. Fingerprinting would have been pointless. The status grant is done, stop harping on it. If you are truly serious about weeding out criminals then fingerprint all of the adults on the island and compare them to any available international criminal databases. You might be surprised at what a background check may reveal about some of our own born and breds.

          • Anonymous says:

             "Grantees were either already here or received the grant and were eligible to come here. "

            Wrong.  Some people took in names for people that were living in other countries.  Also, I know someone who had just arrived on island that got status, someone who was here two years…etc Do you consider them eligible? They have no Cayman connections.

            I would suggest to put an end to this that we do a background check on all of those people and whoever has a criminal background be deported.  I’m sure there is a loop hole in the status grant law to do this.

            The people will live in harmony when the issue is addressed.  This will continue until the politicians make this right.  McKeever made the mess so now he should fix it.

            • Pauly Cicero says:

              "received the grant and were eligible to come here" means they were living in another country. They were eligible by way of the grant after the fact, I’m not claiming they were eligible before the grant. If you find the loophole bring it forth and get your do-over. Being seven years since the grant I wouldn’t put my money on the existence of your loophole. I would suggest we put an end to this by letting it end.

        • Anonymous says:

          and the 7,000 more that became Caymanian through them without any or any adequate background checks.

          • Anonymous says:

            7,000? Are you sure its not 6,999, or 7001? I will ask you too, what proof do you have?

            I love Cayman, but we have this terrible belief that if a Caymanian says something it is true. We have got to stop this nonsense. Unless you have proper evidence and are willing to swear an affidavit, then you are simply gossiping and spreading hate. This is contrary to our Christian background.

            I’ll go one step further. Every culture can be defined by its values. We, for example, are very patriotic, passive and share common Christian beliefs. But if someone from foreign comes here and shares and lives our same values can he not become a part of us? What happens when a born Caymanian, for whatever reason, lies to Immigration about that foreigner to get him kicked off the island, and the foreigner knowing the truth doesn’t counter attack because it is a small community? Who is displaying true Caymanian values, the born Caymanian or the foreigner? My point is if we lose our values, we lose our identity. 

            • Anon says:

              Thank you, Thank you, Thank you! Caymanians need to stop lying about these issues in an attempt to make mountains out of mole hills. As a Caymanian I no longer believe any Caymanian that claims unfair treatment by expat employers. It’s time to kill this wolf.

              Oh, and yes. I’m going to continue attending happy hour with my expat friends, going to and inviting them to church with me, having them by my house, having my children play with their children and enjoying their company for as long as I can.

              So to every Caymanian uneducated idiot who continues to breed hatred between Caymanians and Expats because they do not have the ambition to get up and work for "it", I say sex you, because I cannot use the other word on here.

              from a loyal Caymanian.

            • Anonymous says:

              Actually,it is now substantially more than 7,000 if you count all the people granted PR as a result. I like what you say about culture, but in the Cayman context, the culture is defined by that which is prevalent – and thanks to these immigration issues, there is little Caymanian about it.   

      • Anonymous says:

        jus spreddin da hate 

        • Night Flyer says:

          Reply 19:24   04/09/2010

          Nothing better to do on aSaturday night? sitting at your pc all alone? Idiot.

      • Anonymous says:

        I am not sure about overseas history, but comparing court lists to grant lists (particularly where you include the dependents of those on grant lists) is pretty scary stuff.

    • Anonymous says:

      Am astounded that so many people disagree with this very sensible suggestion. What, you don’t want to find out? Why not? You frightened of something being revealed or what?

      • Dr. Pepper says:

        Perhaps because all suggested implementation so far has been incompatible with Cayman’s human rights obligations and would just result in the government having to pay massive class action compensation down the line.  It is illegal to allow the police free access to non-specifically accessed fingerprints from those not charged with or found guilty of a crime.

        • Anonymous says:

          Funny, the U.S. seems to have no such problem as we are routinely fingerprinted  by immigration upon entry there.   It would be good to hear the HRC weigh in on this though.  

          • Tufty says:

            The US is not subject to the European Convention of Human Rights.  The US rights model and the one that applies in Cayman are very different.  The law on fingerprinting has recently been clarified by Cayman’s highest court.

      • Anonymous says:

        We need some Officers foing around on surprise visits and checking the homes of some employers. A person will get a w permit to supposedly take care of an elderly and when you go to their home the poor elderly is home alone and the helper is out working with other people, also if you visit the yards that these employees should be working in and see the condition of these places and these said employees are out on other jobs. This situation need to be policed better. I often wonder who pays their medical insurance or perhaps they dont even have any.

    • FedUpCaymanian says:

      And to at least one who was a criminal in this country!