Number of Caymanians grows

| 02/09/2014

(CNS): Although the population in Cayman fell slightly at the end of 2013 to 55,691 compared to 56,732 in 2012 the percentage of Caymanians in the population increased by 2% from 56.8% to 58.8%. According to the latest Compendium of Statistics recording the facts and figures for Cayman in 2013 the birth rate continues to fall. With 697 babies born in 2013 the rate fell to 12.5% the lowest since records began. Against concerns about the breakdown of the traditional family unit the compendium also revealed that only 62% of those babies were born to married mothers. This latest data from the ESO gives a statistical snap shot of life in Cayman from students on scholarships to the latest head count of goats.

The annual assessment of Cayman by numbers which is compiled by the Economics and Statistics Office shows that women still outweigh men in Cayman at 51.3% of the population and many more women are studying on overseas scholarships than men. Of the 427 government scholars studying overseas 256 are women. However the higher ratio of women to men in college is not helping women break the glass ceiling. The data shows that even though the number of workers in senior management positions grew in 2013 to 3,541 compared to 3,398 the number of females in those posts fell from 1,441 women in 2012 to just 1,380 last year.

The compendium also reveals that some CI$774.5million worth of goods were imported into Cayman last year the highest value of imports since 2008 and that 92.3% of those goods still come from the United States.

The statistics show that 3580 crimes were reported to the RCIPS in 2013 with the police recording a 53% clearance rate. However the average daily prison population remained static in 2013 at 185 the same as in 2012 which had fallen from a high of 215 recorded in 2011. With 184 inmates in the jails at the end of 2013 only 34 were women and the average age of prisoners also remain relatively static at 35 years old. The prison population was predominantly local with just 42 foreign nationals from the 184 prisoners.

Despite a slight fall in some figures Cayman still remains well connected when it comes to technology as 98.8 percent of households have a mobile phone and almost 64% have access to the internet. 

See the compendium attached below or visit the ESO website for more on Cayman by numbers

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Category: Local News

About the Author ()

Comments (62)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Anonymous says:

    To the annonymous writer that keeps calling our country a thirld world country.  I have 2 words for you.   GO HOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Anonymous says:

      Third world spelling though. You can read your text after writing it, can you?

      • Anonymous says:

        Whenever an expat feels he is on the losing end he resorts to silly points about grammar and spelling.  

        • Anonymous says:

          And when a Caymanian feels that he is on the losing end he resorts to illegible rants about expats. 

        • Anonymous says:

          Nothing silly about English grammar and spelling, after all, you insist that expats pass a stupid test to qualify for work permits, yet you can't get a handle on it yourself. Double standards me thinks.

    • Anonymous says:

      Over 1,000 apparently went home already. How did that work for you?  Are you in a better position than when the 1,000 were here?  I thought not.



    • Anonymous says:

      It is a third world country. 2 distinct social classes and a bunch over paid, government credit card using, disconnected politicians. yep, Third World alright.

      • Anonymous says:

        Well, it is obviously better than yours since you are here.  

      • Anonymous says:

        Soon to be under the control of one very rich man.  Sounds ver third world to me.

  2. Anonyanmous says:

    The survey should let the general public know how many people are eligible to run for politics that is the true test of who is Caymanians.  

    If you were born in Cayman of one parent and a grandparent then you are definately a Caymanian.

    If you were born outside the Cayman but have two Caymanian born parents you are a Caymanian.

    Anyone else is a person who acquired the right to be caymanian i.e. holder of Caymanian Status.

    Government need to clarity that.  



    • Anonymous says:

      So a present day 'Caymanian' grandfather who came here as an immigrant from Honduras in the 70's is more qualified to call himself a 'true Caymanian' than say an immigrant who came to Cayman 10 years ago?

      What crap you people talk, you have totally lost sight of who you are and where you come from. You are not a reincarnation of some Caribbean master race, you are a collection of different races, cultures and nationalities that happen to have settled together within the past few decades. There are few on this island that can trace an unbroken lineage back to the original settlers, and fewer still, (if any) that can claim that immigration hasn't had an impact on their family history.

      The real problem is one of undisguised racism, pure and simple.

      • Anonymous says:

        Actually, many Caymanians can trace their roots back to the 1700s at least, and obviously there is a distinction from someone who got a status grant 11 years ago. We are very keenly aware of who we are and where we have come from. That's what gets your goat.  

        • Anonymous says:

          'At least'? This rock wasn't permanently settled until 1730. As for 'most' Caymanians tracing their roots back, that is complete nonsense as the gene pool has been so thoroughly diluted that absolute genealogy is impossible for 'most'.

          How can less than 10,000 residents, (including expats) in 1960 be directly related to such a small existing population now considering the huge influx of immigrants from Jamaica, UK, US and Central/South America since?

          Just because you happen to have been born with a 'local' name, that doesn't mean that you are a direct descendant, it just means that either the name was adopted, (as was common during slavery) or someone was married into an existing family and kept the name. It is clearly obvious that there isn't any one racial profile for a Caymanian considering the original settlers were white British.

          It is more likely that 'most' Caymanians are Jamaican or Hispanic in genetic origin,(especially as this was a Jamaican dependency until 1963) and where's the harm in that?

          • Anonymous says:

            First, your whole post reflects a lack of reading comprehension. I did not say "most" but "many". 

            Although there are cases of adopted sunames, there is no question that those lines can be and have been traced genealogically and are confirmed by DNA. I am not sure what "married into an existing family and kept the name" means, but clearly intermarriage with immigrants does not mean that there is no bloodline connection with the original inhabitants.  You obviously understand nothing about endogamous populations.

            No one said anything about "one racial profile for a Caymanian".  

            There is no such thing as "Jamaican in genetic origin" since Jamaica was being settled at the same time as Cayman with persons from Britain and Ireland of course African slaves.  Many Caymanians are the descendants of persons who were shipwrecked here and have no connection at all to Jamaica. Cayman was only formally a Dependency of Jamaicafrom 1863, and Jamaica attained Independence in 1962 so Cayman could not have been a Jamaican Dependency in 1963.  

            The settlement of Cayman started from the early 1660s. It is well known that Isaac Bodden was born on Cayman in about 1700. Founded Upon the Seas says "…from as early as 1700 the Cayman Islands were gradually settled permanently and planted". 

            Quit pontificating from a position of ignorance.


          • Anonymous says:

            Logic is not your strong suit, is it? Such a population would almost certainly be related to the original settlers in one way or the other because of intermarriage in a virtually closed society.

        • Anonymous says:

          That's right. The ancestors of bloodline Boddens, Watlers, Tatums, Hunters, Hyde(s), Rivers, Hinds, Edens, Coes, Parsons, Thompsons, Woods, Bushes, and Jacksons were all here in the 1700s, and when you consider that many people carry the bloodline but not the surname (e.g. where it came through the female line)that accounts for more than half of all Caymanians. 

    • Anonymous says:

      Really, an accurate test to decide whether someone is a true Caymanian is if they can run for politics. Well that should work out well for you because all that will throw up are myopic incompetents who keep their noses firmly in the public feeding trough.

      Now there's something to aspire too.

      • Anonymous says:

        Your first statement is accurate. Your second is racist. Interesting to see how many thumbs up you received. The good thing about anonymous posts on CNS is that it reveals the undercurrent of racism against Caymanians by expats. 

    • Anonymous says:

      If you were born of a parent and a grandparent, you're probably from West Bay

    • Anonymous says:

      If you used your definition of who was truly British in the UK you would be arrested for hate speech! Imagine trying to tell the children of West Indian immigrants who were born and grew up in the UK that they are not British because their parents were not born there. People like you make me sick and are no better than fascists.  Unless we agree that we are all one people, not "natives" and "paper caymanians", we will never be able to pull together to get us out of this downward slide we appear to be in. Signed – Proud Caymanian, even though neither of my parents were born here!

      • Anonymous says:

        "imagine trying to tell the children of West Indian immigrants who were born and grew up in the UK that they are not British because their parents were not born there".

        Ummmm….that happens all the time. That is the point. They are not even called English but "Black British".

      • Anonymous says:

        That is laughable. Britain is one of the most racist societies on earth. Those sentients are expressed on a regular basis. 

    • Anonymous says:

      We all have Caymanian Status, either by birthright or by grant.

    • Watson says:

      If you were "born of one parent and a grandparent", then your family has bigger issues than your nationality! 

  3. Anonymous says:

    Population declined, birth rate declined. I don't see how this story supports the title.

  4. Anonymous says:

    How many are irrevocable cabinet grant status holders from 2003? Not the ones used to muddy the waters who would have got it anyway. The ones who were given it who never should have been. 

    • Anonymous says:

      They are not irrevocable, and in answerto your question, many.

    • Anonyanmous says:

      There is no such thing as an irrevocable cabinet status grant any status can be taken away.  The only person that cannot be deported is a person born in Cayman of one or two Caymanian parents.

      • Anonymous says:

        You'd be lucky if you could find two parents, the numbers show that.

        Just saying.

      • Anonymous says:

        What does deportation have to do with anything?

      • Anonymous says:

        As settled residents with accrued Article 8 rights, status grants are to all intents and purposes irrevocable.

  5. Anonymousand says:

    Crap report!
    Why? ..a “Caymanian” is now any+everybody.
    Natives are far outnumbered by status grantees+their ‘new’ families + adopted kids.
    The politicians are all just grinning at this!
    Why not do stats on the less than 15,000 natiives also?

    • You can't fix stupid says:

      Native Caymanians are not native in the true sense, they are imports from other countries the same as your paper Caymanians. Why do people try and make out it is so diffierent? The only real difference is that the paper Caymanians moved to Cayman after rules were brought in to try and stop overpopulation of the islands by immigrants.

      • Anonymous says:

        Tell an American that he is not a tue American and see his response. Tell a Brit the same. 

        If everyone is going to get so technical about native and none native, then we were all natives of Africa.


        • Anonymous says:

          What does your passport say you are. Does it say a US Citizen, a British Citizen or does it say Caymanian Citizen? 

          Are the indigenous people of America not called 'Native Americans' for a reason and the British made up of English, Irish, Scots and Welsh, all being distinct racial and genetic profiles from ancient peoples? We're talking history here of thousands not a couple of hundred years.

          The point being that Caymanians and the Cayman Islands are not recognised as a nation state, they are British Citizens, period. The term Caymanian only describes the location in which they live, not their nationality. And as for the whole Africa theory, Cayman is a conservative Christian society that believes in the bible and not the evolution of man as accepted by scientists.

          So you see, it's just one make believe after another for the Cayman Islands.

          • Anonymous says:

            Actually, the "Native Americans" were not indigenous but migrated there from Asia. And the Celtic and Anglo Saxon population of Britain were also not indigenous but migrated/invaded from continential Europe.

            Ummm…no. "Caymanians" are a distinct people regardless of nationality. Have been for the past 300+ years.   

    • Anonymous says:

      What 'natives', you are all descendants of immigrants, just look around you, there are obvious bloodlines from Jamaica, UK, Honduras, Cuba and probably the rest of North, Central and South America. The original settlers were white British so how do you work out the distinct racial profile that is prevalent on these Islands, surely immigration and inter racial relationships played their part?

      All of you are here because of successive immigration waves built a diminutive settlement population into a settled diminutive population. Now you might think that 'natives' are the chosen ones, but the numbers speak for themselves. In the early 1960's the total population was only 10,000, how do you think that the financial services and tourism sector expanded in the way it did in the 60's and 70's, rapid breeding by the tiny 'local' population or by immigration?

      Considering these factors, taking into account the falling birthrate and the relatively small 'local' population, the term 'Caymanian' is basically any former immigrant who holds nationality status on the Cayman Islands. It is not a racial, genetic or indigenous profile, it is a cover all for people who have come together to live on this particular group of Islands.

      To claim otherwise is a cynical attempt to foster division, prejudice and discrimination. As we all know, Ezzard Miller is the master spinner of such odious practice, but enjoys the double standard of being in a relationship with 'furiegner', whilst claiming Cayman for 'Caymanians'. Good to see he's doing his bit for population growth though.



      • Anonymous says:

        Ummm…if that is your definition you could say that about any country. Britain is made up of the descendants of foreign invaders from the Celts right on down through the Angles, Saxons, Vikings and Normans, yet the Englishman will certainly distinguish himself from more recent immigrants from Pakistan and the Caribbean. Jamaican is also a country made of immigrants so if you want to avoid speaking of a Caymanian bloodline you cannot speak of a Jamaican bloodline. Jamaica was being settled as a colony at the same time as Cayman.

        Everyone knows what a Caymanian is, but people like you pretend not to know when it is convenient.      

        • Anonymous says:

          Unlike Cayman, Britain has a long and rich history dating back thousands of years. True, immigration played its part along the way and most 'indigenous' Brits are peppered with descendants that may have some ancient bloodline. However, also unlike Cayman, the vast majority of immigrants were north European with similar cultural and genetic profiles. It was only in comparatively recent times that mass immigration from the Caribbean, south Asian sub continent, (and more recently) Eastern Europe, (Slavs) has had any significant racial and cultural impact.

          Jamaica was settled by the the Spanish in 1509, near where is now known as Spanish Town. Cayman on the other hand wasn't permanently settled until around 1730, a gap of 200 years. Furthermore, Cayman was settled by British settlers, (some coming via Jamaica) but Jamaica was largely populated by African slaves to a ratio of approximately 20:1 against their white masters.

          Cayman was a dependency of Jamaica and basically a part of that country as it's political and cultural ties were so interconnected. In fact the Governor of Jamaica was also the Governor of Cayman.  It also held a 50% slave to master ratio at the height of the slave trade, (mostly originating from Jamaica).

          Cayman is a British Territory, Jamaica is an independent nation state, it has it's own passport system and a recognised national status. Caymanian is a word to describe the people of the Cayman Islands who are foremost British Citizens. A comparison would be residents of London being referred to as Londoners, but still remaing British Citizens. The same applies to Scots, Welsh or the Northern Irish.

          The truth is, anyone can call themselves British once they hold a passport, it's the racial and genetic profile that belies the heritage of a Celt or Anglo Saxon or indeed Viking. As the Norman's were of Celtic/Norse lineage anyway, the Norman invasion only served to reintroduce ancient bloodlines back into medieval Britain, such as the Anglo Danes, (albeit with a Norman French accent).

          Caymanians don't have that lineage because of the diverse mix of nationalities that have made up the growing population, certainly since the post war years. That is clear from the mix of races that make up popular family names of Cayman, no one family appears to have a clear racial lineage. 

          If one was being truly pedantic, (as you appear to be) then one could claim that for 'Jamaican' read people of 'African' or 'Afro-European' decent, (with maybe a little Arawak). For Cayman, read ' Afro-European-North, South and Central American (various) and Caribbean (various). Then add some South East Asian and we're getting near the diverse racial and cultural mix that makes up the population of the Cayman Islands.

          And that's not a bad thing, the diversity of cultures over the years has only served to add interest and history to these Islands and it's people. Cayman should learn from the US and other former  European colonies and be proud of its immigrant heritage, not embarrassed.

          The bad thing is the notion that Caymanians are some kind of separate population that can disavow any individual who cannot trace a simple ancestral line from a grandparent. This is clearly wrong, devisive and possibly racist. If that was an accurate measure, how do you measure the lineage prior to 1962 when Cayman was a dependant territory of Jamaica. Does this mean that Caymanians only exist after Jamaican independence? The point being that a Caymanian is the product of a mixed heritage, culture and racial background. There isn't a Caymanian racial profile, successive waves of immigration since the 60's have ensured that.

          The sad thing is that you can't embrace your own heritage and history, you appear to have a deep seated insecurity that lives in denial of your roots and your position within the Caribbean peoples. That isolationist and bigoted viewpoint is not to your credit as in the real world everyone can recognise nationalist racism when they see it. Or is that an inconvenient truth also?


          • Whodatis says:

            Aaahh … shaddup will ya?!

            Every Brit and European is in fact African. Mitochondrial DNA mapping has proven this fact. For those of you that find this discomforting, nature has a way of pimp-slapping you across the face with a sharp dose of reality.

            For example …

            Black couple gives birth to white baby (1)

            Black couple gives bitrh to white baby (2)

            (And no, these are not cases of albinism.)

            The world is yet to see a reversed case – so you do the math.

            • Anonymous says:

              What are you talking about? Both me and my wife are white and we just had a black baby last week….my wife told me it's quite common!

          • Anonymous says:

            The original Spanish settlement has very little to do with the current population of Jamaica since they cleared out of there when Cromwell defeated them. Any settlement of present day Jamaica should be taken as having occurred after 1655.

            Caymanians have always existed as a separate people, in the same way that Jamaicans are a separate people from the African nations from which the majority of their population is derived. Political independence is not what makes you a people, and neither is having one racial profile. We fully embrace our roots and celebrate our diversity; what we reject are spurious attempts to conflate us with any other nationality be they Jamaicans or others.    

            • Anonymous says:

              Correct. In 1835 when a proposal was put to the Jamaican Assembly by Governor Sligo for legislative union of Jamaica with Cayman here is what the Jamaican Assembly had to say: 

              "We do not perceive the "expediency of a legislative union of the Caymanas with Jamaica". It is no fault of ours that "the two classes of His Majesty's subjects resident there have been placed in their present relative position towards each other". Having always protested external interference with our own legislation we are not disposed to interfere with that of others and must therefore leave those who have occasioned "the absence of a legally constituted government of the Caymanas" to organize the elements of society in that dependency of His Majesty…". 

        • Anonymous says:

          The Celts weren't foreign invaders, neither were the Ancient Britons, (various tribes) who were there long before the Romans, Vikings, Saxons, Jutes, Angles or Normans. But the numbers involved in successive waves of settled immigration were minute as most invaders ruled by proxy after the initial confrontation. The Saxons probably had the most impact as they set about ethnically cleansing the Ancient Britons, that is why white English peoples are known as Anglo Saxon, albeit that the actual population during this time was a mix of Britons, Germanic and Norse settlers, Celts and Romano British. But the overwhelming clue is the fact that the mix was northern white European as Rome retreated back to the south leaving only those who were Romanised Brits behind.

          However, this was all happening between 1000 and 2000 years ago, not a couple of hundred or a few decades ago. British history took on a whole new meaning after the Norman conquest in 1066, it wasn't until the 1500's that Briton went out into the world and became a truly global power. Immigration wasn't an issue until the Huguenots fled France, and even then the numbers were comparatively small as they fled to many other European Protestant countries besides Britain. The Irish and the Scots probably had the most impact up until WW2, then we saw the huge influx of Caribbean, Indian Sub Continent and finally Eastern European people that has turned Britain into a country unrecognisable to our forefathers 100 years ago.

          But all of this has taken time, a lot of blood and incalculable loss. It's true that the 'British' are a diverse peoples due to immigration and the handing out of passports to former colonial conquests. But deep down, most people of English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish ancestral decent can trace their roots back hundreds of years and can claim to be the very foundation of British history and her peoples.

          Unfortunately the same cannot be said for Caymanians as your history and culture has evolved directly around settlement and immigration over less than 300 years. In fact, mostly the past 50 years since mass immigration was encouraged to service the financial, service and tourism sectors. During the years of slavery the population barely numbered more than 1000, and that was with a 50% slave to master ratio. After imancipation is when the Caymanian population grew by 50% and saw further immigration and settlement from mother Jamaica.

          Jamaica on the other hand is made up largely of African slave descendants and can claim to have a distinct African racial and genetic profile. It is also a recognised nation state, unlike Cayman.

          • Anonymous says:

            The point is that Britain did not have an indigenous population and all of its inhabitants are the descendants of immigrants. If you are going to make that point in respect of Cayman it equally applies to Britain. In the same way that descendants of Celts, Angles etc. can claim to be the foundation of British history so can the descendants of the first Cayman settlers.     

      • Whodatis says:

        "Settlers" or pirates?

        • Anonymous says:

          Written like a paper Caymanian who likes to masquerade as a real Caymanian.  

    • Anonyanmous says:

      Nothing can change who a real Caymanian is, and Caymanian know who a Caymanian is.  When a Caymanian know who ya fa, who ya mama is and who ya papa is, then you are a Caymanian.

      • Anonymous says:

        That'll narrow the field down then, can't be many that have all three.

      • Fred the Piemaker says:

        What about those kids where we have no idea who the papa is?

  6. Anonymous says:

    Well for heaven's sake, it is their country. The rest of us have somewhere else to go. I seriously despise the arrogant colonial attitude. Stick someone over here with a pretty feather in their cap and call it macaroni.

    Independence can't come soon enough. Shame about those damned dishonest politicians.

    • Anonymous says:

      Independence would certainly assist learning about the impact of real unemployment and deprivation.

      • Anonyanmous says:

        Independence which I don't support might come sometime within the next 30 year though because we now have a new breed of people who want the benefits but not the responsibilities.   These are the people who don't want to be ruled by the UK but if the UK would say today all who want to be citizens come on over we all know that their country would be empty.

    • Anonymous says:

      You mean it is their "Third world" country.

    • Anonymous says:

      Then go, no body wants you to suffer unduly. You see, it's our country too, we live here, raise our kids here, invest here and die here, so why don't you find your independent utopia elsewhere. You never know, that could be Scotland soon, I hear it's nice there for at least one day a year.

    • Anonymous says:

      Independence is just what Cayman needs to move out of the third world.  After a year or so of totall freedom to do what ever they think is right and screwing everything up the smart ones can come back and take over and kick out the idiots who are now in charge.  I say go for it.

  7. Anonymous says:

    Very impressive 187 page update of last years update!

    Would help if it contained some meaningful data such as "Number of senior officials, department heads, middle management, assistants and clerks required to photocopy statistics report"