You could call it the third rail of local politics, Mr Editor: immigration generally, status specifically. For those who don’t know, the third rail is a metaphor often used to describe an issue so fraught with controversy that any politician, or Government for that matter, that tackles the subject will invariably suffer, politically. It is the exposed electrical conductor that has to be handled with care, preferably by those who know what they are doing. Otherwise, excuse the expression, it’s lights out.

So far, what movement we have seen has come in fits and starts. Or so it seems.

First, there was the promise of providing pathways to Bermuda status for persons born in Bermuda “to conform to human rights obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights”.

Also the 2013 Throne Speech promised “community-wide consultation” on the need to encourage (more) foreign investment in Bermuda “through a commercial immigration programme”.

I remember one public meeting at the Cathedral Hall in Hamilton which actually raised more questions than it provided answers.

I recall the ‘expert’ brought in from Washington DC who told us two things that stuck out in my mind:

* Those who are chiefly interested in commercial immigration are: Chinese, Russians and people from the Middle East; and that,

* They are chiefly interested not so much in residence but in the additional passport they can acquire for their ‘investment’ .

We don’t know whether this is anything close to what Government has in mind.

They weren’t saying that night, notwithstanding a barrage of questions from an anxious and at times agitated audience. They were told matters were only at the discussion stage. No decisions had been taken.

Meanwhile, calls for economic citizenship continue, whether status for dollars or no (a kind of status quid pro quo?) – and from some fairly influential, and arguably powerful quarters.

To this we can now add the recent controversial decision of the Chief Justice who ruled that the law didn’t actually say what pretty well everyone thought it said (excepting the appellants of course) and whose ruling paved the way for long-term residents to be granted status ie those permanent residents who came here on or before the 31st of July 1989. We are told that since the decision 115 people have applied to get on track already, and that there are a further possible 1340 persons who may be eligible, along with as many as 150 of their children. Some think this estimate is on the low side.

Like the Opposition PLP who believe the potential number may be four times that figure.

The ruling could not have been entirely unexpected. Not by the Government. They had to know that it was either going to go one way or the other. There should have been a Plan A or a Plan B. The status quo of Plan A (pun unintended) obviously went out the window. Plan B? Was there even one? Government was slow to lodge an appeal (it went in at the last minute) while up on the Hill they told us the matter of status remains under review.

What’s curious then is not why Government voted against an Opposition amendment to maintain the status quo (pun intended) but why they also rejected the Opposition’s move simply to rise and report progress while the review was carried out.

It’s an approach that I employed when in Opposition and not an unreasonable one to take frankly. There are rules of the House which state that once a matter is debated and decided no further similar legislation can be brought back until a new session – which in this case will not be until November.

On the other hand, this may be what the OBA Government wants.

You can go figure. What I see are the deficiencies to a system that quickly becomes strictly adversarial.

By all means let’s have a review, but an open review in which all who wish to be heard, can be.

This is where a quickly struck committee of the Legislature can provide just the forum through public hearings. We can hear the facts from those who have the facts. We can learn of the options open to us, assuming there are options. For instance, it would be most useful for all of us to know the position of the UK Government on economic citizenship, assuming that is still on the table, particularly the position on what will or will not be acceptable when it comes to naturalisation and the issuance of Bermuda passports.

There are still dots to be connected too, for many Bermudians who do not buy into the benefits this may bring to the local economy.

There is a past here that cannot be erased or ignored.

There are fears, worries even, over the impact opening up will have on jobs, housing, educational opportunities and, yes, politics should it include the right to vote. You remember how this played out in the past.

An open, honest parliamentary review might well assist not just in bringing people in on the issues, but in helping formulate a community consensus on a national immigration plan.

It is this front door rather than back door approach on a critical issue which may prompt people to participate with open but not empty minds.

Some will decry the method as taking too much time.

But the harder issues, the important and the difficult, are worth the investment of time.

Besides look how much time has been wasted to this point … and without apparent progress.

* Join in with your views on The Royal Gazette website or write jbarritt@ibl.bm.