There has been a lot of propaganda surrounding the beleaguered introduction and subsequent withdrawal of the Bermuda Immigration and Protection Amendment Act 2016.

The mantra, which has revolved around the “Pathways to Status” campaign, has been that it’s a “human right”, a “basic right” and “the right thing to do”.

Well, just to throw a cat among the pigeons, I’m going to assert that the granting of Bermudian status, on the basis of years of residency alone, is not a right, but a gift. And anyone who tells you otherwise, including the present government, is misinformed.

In addition, the granting of such “residency status” is linked inextricably to and conflicted with the historical quest of many native inhabitants and their descendants to the realisation of their internationally protected human right to “self-determination”.

Comprehensive immigration reform — not non-binding consultation on patchwork amendments — must factor in this real, fundamental, and neglected, issue.

To support my case, I beg the indulgence of my fellow readers and The Royal Gazette to publish excerpts of a discussion paper presented by Peter Clegg at the Caribbean regional seminar on the Implementation of the Third International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism, held at Managua, Nicaragua, between May 19 and 21 last year.

Dr Clegg is a senior lecturer in politics and international relations at the University of the West of England, in Bristol, Gloucestershire. His area of expertise includes the international political economy of the Commonwealth Caribbean, and governance and development issues in non-independent territories.

The title of Dr Clegg’s paper was Taking Stock of the Decolonisation Agenda — the UK Overseas Territories (Caribbean, Bermuda and St Helena): Current Positions and Future Options.

I would like to share selected parts of Section 4 of that presentation with the thinking Bermuda public as a kick-off to the discussion, entitled: The ‘Belonger’ issue and the decolonisation debate.

“A very important issue, but also a very sensitive one, is in relation to the recognition and role of people living and working in the territories. Within the context of this seminar and the focus on decolonisation, the position of ‘Belongers’ as against ‘non-Belongers’ needs to be addressed because it has implications for political participation and how decisions regarding the future political status of the territories might be made. In short, should the number of Belongers be gradually expanded so they better represent the territory’s population as a whole, and in turn the political views of the people?”

“Before answering this question, I would like to provide some background to the Belonger issue. Formal nationality issues are the responsibility of the UK, but each territory has its own more informal arrangements — equivalent to ‘local citizenship’. Belonger status — this term is used in a generic way because territories use different terminology: Caymanian; Montserratian; Bermudian; Turks and Caicos Islander — is granted to those individuals who are seen to have particularly strong links with a territory. In some territories, such as Anguilla and the British Virgin Islands, the status is set out in their constitutions; in others (Bermuda, the Cayman Islands, and the Turks and Caicos Islands) local legislation (sometimes guided by the Constitution) defines the status. In the main, the only ways to become a Belonger are by birth, descent, adoption, by marriage (after a qualification period), or being the dependent child of someone who becomes a Belonger by marriage. Also, Belonger status can be granted based on the time spent in a territory (eg, Anguilla) or the social or political contribution made (although this can be open to abuse, as was seen in the Turks and Caicos Islands).

“Being a Belonger is highly prized and the privilege strongly defended. This is because there are a range of benefits that Belongers have, which non-Belongers do not. The benefits vary slightly across territories, but commonly they include the right to own property without the need for a licence; and important political rights — chiefly the right to vote and to stand as a candidate for election.”

Dr Clegg goes on to reference how “a high demand for labour, and relatively open immigration policies” have led to “a growing imbalance between total population size and the number of Belongers”. One of the examples he gives is the Cayman Islands, where Caymanians “still make up only 59 per cent of the population” and “migrants form a majority of the working-age population”.

He continues: “Such demographic profiles are interesting in highlighting the dependency of some territories on non-Belonger/migrant labour. But they also have implications for the size of the electorates, as the right to vote is dependent on Belonger status.”

Statistics are then provided by way of a table, showing “a comparison of the size of the electorates to the populations in the territories”. It is interesting to note that in the Cayman Islands, out of a population of 58,435, only 18,492, or 31.6 per cent, are registered voters. Comparatively, Bermuda is cited as having 43,652 registered voters, or 67.1 per cent of a total population of 65,024. (Keep in mind that Bermuda is roughly one-fifth the size of Cayman.)

Dr Clegg goes on to suggest that the broadening of the franchise could create “a more representative electorate” that “would enrich discussions” relative to “the decolonisation issue”, including “the future political status of each territory”.

This is a curious argument, in my opinion, since the purpose of decolonisation, launched as a UN initiative in 1960, was to give a voice to historically colonised or “dependent” peoples who were native inhabitants of the dependent territory — not to guest workers or guest residents who were already citizens of independent states.

One example of an opposing view to Dr Clegg’s suggestion that the franchise be broadened is provided in the form of a statement made in 2009 by the Caymans’ Minister of Education, Alden M. McLaughlin:

“Accept that Cayman is in a unique position; one of the few countries in the world where the vast majority of the population cannot vote because they do not have a sufficient connection to the islands. But I do not believe that we have yet reached the point where the Caymanian population who can vote are prepared to simply say that because there are more of you who can’t vote, who have more liberal views, our constitutional document ought to reflect those views (Official Hansard Report, 2009: 869).”

Dr Clegg concludes this section of his presentation with the following:

“Increasing the number of residents who have Belonger status is as we have seen very sensitive, and there are good reasons why this issue should be dealt with in a delicate manner. Belongers are fearful of losing their identity and position within society, with influential expats on the one hand and recent large-scale, labour migration on the other. In addition, it is important to recognise that any changes are in the gift of the territories, and this power is a key illustration of their autonomy ...”

While many of us may have differing views on the granting of status to long-term residents, ranging from a complete moratorium until independence to granting status now to those with 20-plus years of residency, let’s get one thing straight: such granting of status is not a human right, but a gift from the still colonised people of Bermuda, inhabiting a mere 21 square miles.

Paragraph 11.9 of the [Pitt] Report of the Royal Commission into the 1977 Disturbances — Bermuda (1978) puts it this way:

“The Commission believes that the principle that all residents should be able to qualify as voters is an important one, such that it can be overridden only by some more compelling principle.

“One such principle ought to be the recognition that the right to vote in Bermuda was hard won by agitation from the black community almost exclusively, but the overseas voter is seen as a new and decisive element which has the effect of thwarting the success of their struggle ... The Commission ... recommends ... to bring the provisions for residential voting to an end.”

• LeYoni Junos is a former director of Amnesty International Bermuda, and participated in a summer programme in international human rights law at the University of Oxford in 1999. She is a native Bermudian researcher who has launched the Commission on Decolonisation for the Eradication of Colonialism, and specialises in research of indigenous African and Native American persons forcibly brought to Bermuda as slaves, and their descendants. She is also a member of the Civil Justice Advocacy Group