Tweet
The rollover is not the answer
The government says it won't repeal the rollover policy, which is too bad, writes Tad Stoner
The starting point for discussing the rollover policy is that it is designed to stop expatriates from becoming permanent residents. The argument is that, otherwise, Caymanians will lose control of their country. This is senseless, but reflects a fear of what the future holds for these three islands.
The volume of the conversation continues to rise, but so much of it involves an insular exchange among the legions of the persuaded, who know only that they do not want to be overwhelmed by 'foreigners'.
Anyone that can read or hear knows now that most expatriates in the Cayman Islands are Jamaicans. To be sure, native Caymanians do not appear overly worried that Americans, Britons or Canadians will swamp their culture. They worry Jamaicans will swamp their culture.
Just to be clear, this does not make the rollover racist: after all, Jamaicans are not a race, they are a nationality. That makes the rollover both ethnocentric and nationalist. The question before the government and people of the Cayman Islands is what kind of future is shaped by ethnocentricity and nationalism, especially in a community as tiny as this - and the answer must be 'an increasingly limited one'.
That does not appear to daunt our leaders, however. For example, last week, Leader of Government Business Kurt Tibbetts lent his support to the rollover in a formal statement, much of which appeared founded on wishful thinking.
For example, he cited 2003's 3,000 Status grants as bringing community tensions 'to almost boiling point', but ignored what might be described as 'mitigating facts'. Those grants were made to clean up a longstanding mess that threatened to call down a great deal more than tension. The move cleared a backlog of people who had been resident in the Cayman Islands for more than a decade without any immigration controls at all, and who qualified under international law for security of tenure, if not full residency, and who could not simply be expelled.
If the grants had not been made, the George Town government today would face international legal opprobrium and 3,000 more people with legitimate claims to permanent residency. The fact is that Anthony Scott's Permanent Residency Board already faces a 2,000-application backlog. Another 3,000, and the delays implicit in that, and the consequently increased pressure on the Work Permit Board, and the system would very likely choke to death.
Tibbetts said the rollover will 'ensure continued stability, harmony, growth and progress'. In the absence of an ability to see into the future, this statement must represent wishful thinking. Moreover, some perfectly cogent arguments have been made in support of exactly the opposite.
If businesses - large, small, locally owned and foreign owned - and even our own government (whose oft-stated policy is to extend the rollover to the previously exempt civil service) cannot retain people they know, trust and support, then what happens to stability, harmony, growth and progress? Rollover forces every enterprise back to 'square one' as experienced employees depart.
The rollover is not intended to reduce the expatriate population so much as it is to prevent foreigners from achieving the 10-year residency that qualifies them to remain permanently. Expelling them obliges employers either to seek Caymanians or import replacements, who start their own seven-year rollover 'clock'.
The number of Caymanians prepared to occupy skilled, professional positions is simply insufficient to keep the wheels turning, however, to say nothing of driving growth. Meanwhile, the legal tests for exempting expatriates from the rollover are so malleable as to make planning practically impossible, offering little in the way of 'stability'.
David Ritch, the chairman of the Work Permit Board, was plain when he spoke at the Chamber of Commerce immigration forum three weeks ago: permits and the rollover will work in lockstep to limit the preponderance of any single nationality in the workforce and community. If, for example, officials believe too many Jamaicans work here, they are likely to bar others from entering, and as Jamaican employees leave, someone else has to fill the vacancies.
Will a sudden rush of previously suppressed and jobless Caymanians occupy these slots? It seems unlikely (not least, since the unemployment rate in Cayman is so low). It is equally unlikely that employers are going to seek masons and carpenters and ditch diggers and domestic helpers in Zimbabwe or Fiji - or even St Lucia, Grenada or Barbados.
The simple practicalities are that employers want to look to Jamaica, and for good reason: myriad interpersonal connections to Cayman, a long-standing mutual national history, similar culture and physical proximity, not to mention cheaper wages than some Caymanians may be prepared to accept.
The unexamined conceit underlying the numbers argument is that everyone who sets foot in the Cayman Islands wants to remain.
Already, 5,000 Jamaicans have been here at least eight years. The fact, however, is that very few of those people have apparently pursued permanent residency. Yet the thinking appears to proceed as follows: If all 5,000 apply for permanent residency, authorities are flatly obliged to grant it. Then, as night must follow day, all 5,000 will apply for Status, followed, as the moon must circle the earth, by full Caymanian citizenship.
The logic goes on that all 5,000 will immediately import all of their dependants, who will swamp the schools, medical facilities, welfare roles, roads and housing, wrecking Cayman's fragile economy and culture.
And still, as the song goes, there'll be more. All of these people will now want to vote; and because they now comprise sufficient numbers, are now Caymanian and eligible to run for political office, they will elect themselves. And that, as they say, will be that. Caymanians will have lost control of their own country. Cayman will be laid waste. Jamaicans will turn a once-prosperous economy into a welfare state. Cayman traditions, quiet charm, physical beauty, environment, even its native people: gone, destroyed, ruined.
What is to check this juggernaut? One little administrative measure. The rollover will make the islands safe again, secure in a chaotic world. If only real life were ever that simple.
The government says it won't repeal the rollover policy, which is too bad, writes Tad Stoner
The starting point for discussing the rollover policy is that it is designed to stop expatriates from becoming permanent residents. The argument is that, otherwise, Caymanians will lose control of their country. This is senseless, but reflects a fear of what the future holds for these three islands.
The volume of the conversation continues to rise, but so much of it involves an insular exchange among the legions of the persuaded, who know only that they do not want to be overwhelmed by 'foreigners'.
Anyone that can read or hear knows now that most expatriates in the Cayman Islands are Jamaicans. To be sure, native Caymanians do not appear overly worried that Americans, Britons or Canadians will swamp their culture. They worry Jamaicans will swamp their culture.
Just to be clear, this does not make the rollover racist: after all, Jamaicans are not a race, they are a nationality. That makes the rollover both ethnocentric and nationalist. The question before the government and people of the Cayman Islands is what kind of future is shaped by ethnocentricity and nationalism, especially in a community as tiny as this - and the answer must be 'an increasingly limited one'.
That does not appear to daunt our leaders, however. For example, last week, Leader of Government Business Kurt Tibbetts lent his support to the rollover in a formal statement, much of which appeared founded on wishful thinking.
For example, he cited 2003's 3,000 Status grants as bringing community tensions 'to almost boiling point', but ignored what might be described as 'mitigating facts'. Those grants were made to clean up a longstanding mess that threatened to call down a great deal more than tension. The move cleared a backlog of people who had been resident in the Cayman Islands for more than a decade without any immigration controls at all, and who qualified under international law for security of tenure, if not full residency, and who could not simply be expelled.
If the grants had not been made, the George Town government today would face international legal opprobrium and 3,000 more people with legitimate claims to permanent residency. The fact is that Anthony Scott's Permanent Residency Board already faces a 2,000-application backlog. Another 3,000, and the delays implicit in that, and the consequently increased pressure on the Work Permit Board, and the system would very likely choke to death.
Tibbetts said the rollover will 'ensure continued stability, harmony, growth and progress'. In the absence of an ability to see into the future, this statement must represent wishful thinking. Moreover, some perfectly cogent arguments have been made in support of exactly the opposite.
If businesses - large, small, locally owned and foreign owned - and even our own government (whose oft-stated policy is to extend the rollover to the previously exempt civil service) cannot retain people they know, trust and support, then what happens to stability, harmony, growth and progress? Rollover forces every enterprise back to 'square one' as experienced employees depart.
The rollover is not intended to reduce the expatriate population so much as it is to prevent foreigners from achieving the 10-year residency that qualifies them to remain permanently. Expelling them obliges employers either to seek Caymanians or import replacements, who start their own seven-year rollover 'clock'.
The number of Caymanians prepared to occupy skilled, professional positions is simply insufficient to keep the wheels turning, however, to say nothing of driving growth. Meanwhile, the legal tests for exempting expatriates from the rollover are so malleable as to make planning practically impossible, offering little in the way of 'stability'.
David Ritch, the chairman of the Work Permit Board, was plain when he spoke at the Chamber of Commerce immigration forum three weeks ago: permits and the rollover will work in lockstep to limit the preponderance of any single nationality in the workforce and community. If, for example, officials believe too many Jamaicans work here, they are likely to bar others from entering, and as Jamaican employees leave, someone else has to fill the vacancies.
Will a sudden rush of previously suppressed and jobless Caymanians occupy these slots? It seems unlikely (not least, since the unemployment rate in Cayman is so low). It is equally unlikely that employers are going to seek masons and carpenters and ditch diggers and domestic helpers in Zimbabwe or Fiji - or even St Lucia, Grenada or Barbados.
The simple practicalities are that employers want to look to Jamaica, and for good reason: myriad interpersonal connections to Cayman, a long-standing mutual national history, similar culture and physical proximity, not to mention cheaper wages than some Caymanians may be prepared to accept.
The unexamined conceit underlying the numbers argument is that everyone who sets foot in the Cayman Islands wants to remain.
Already, 5,000 Jamaicans have been here at least eight years. The fact, however, is that very few of those people have apparently pursued permanent residency. Yet the thinking appears to proceed as follows: If all 5,000 apply for permanent residency, authorities are flatly obliged to grant it. Then, as night must follow day, all 5,000 will apply for Status, followed, as the moon must circle the earth, by full Caymanian citizenship.
The logic goes on that all 5,000 will immediately import all of their dependants, who will swamp the schools, medical facilities, welfare roles, roads and housing, wrecking Cayman's fragile economy and culture.
And still, as the song goes, there'll be more. All of these people will now want to vote; and because they now comprise sufficient numbers, are now Caymanian and eligible to run for political office, they will elect themselves. And that, as they say, will be that. Caymanians will have lost control of their own country. Cayman will be laid waste. Jamaicans will turn a once-prosperous economy into a welfare state. Cayman traditions, quiet charm, physical beauty, environment, even its native people: gone, destroyed, ruined.
What is to check this juggernaut? One little administrative measure. The rollover will make the islands safe again, secure in a chaotic world. If only real life were ever that simple.