GREAT BAY--Members of Parliament Sjamira Roseburg and Sarah Wescot-Williams have called for several clarifications and possible changes to MP Omar Ottley's proposed residency legislation for children born on St. Maarten to foreign parents, with Roseburg suggesting that education should become the single pathway to residency rather than requiring children to depend on their parents' tax records.
During Thursday's Central Committee meeting of Parliament, October 22, Roseburg presented a series of questions and recommendations aimed at closing potential gaps in the legislation, particularly those affecting children in single-parent households, foster care, youth homes and families whose residency documentation has not been properly maintained.
Wescot-Williams, who chaired the meeting, raised separate concerns about parental responsibility, the practicality of the proposed 10-year tax requirement and whether children at age 10 would be capable of pursuing their legal rights without adult assistance.
Both MPs recognized the importance of the initiative and expressed disappointment that Ottley had not received requested responses from the relevant government ministries. They emphasized that government input was necessary to ensure the legislation could be implemented effectively.
One of Roseburg's central recommendations was to reconsider the proposed provision that would allow a child to qualify for residency based on a parent having fulfilled 10 consecutive years of tax obligations.
Referring to the findings of Ottley's own focus-group research, Roseburg argued that a child's legal status should not depend on the circumstances or actions of the parents. She questioned whether the parental tax route should be removed entirely and replaced with a single pathway based on the child's connection to St. Maarten through birth, residence and education.
Her proposal would allow children to qualify at age 10, provided they have maintained their principal residence on St. Maarten since birth and completed at least six consecutive years of enrollment in the local education system.
Roseburg pointed out that some parents cannot provide 10 years of tax records, particularly where a parent is absent, works informally or has failed to maintain the necessary documentation. She questioned whether those circumstances should continue to affect children who have spent their lives on St. Maarten.
She also noted that the Explanatory Memorandum accompanying Ottley's draft refers to school enrollment as evidence of residence, but the proposed legal article itself does not explicitly contain the educational requirement.
Roseburg recommended incorporating the requirement directly into the law, rather than relying solely on the explanatory documentation, to establish a clearer legal basis for determining eligibility.
Another concern involved how the proposed continuous residence and school enrollment requirements would apply when a child's education is interrupted.
Roseburg questioned whether extended illness, changing schools, receiving medical treatment abroad or temporarily studying outside St. Maarten could interrupt the qualifying period.
She suggested including provisions making clear that such circumstances would not automatically disqualify a child, consistent with the relevant provisions of the National Ordinance on Admission and Expulsion.
She also raised the situation of children who previously possessed valid residency permits but experienced gaps because their parents failed to renew the documents on time.
Roseburg proposed explicitly stating that earlier interruptions in legal admission should not count against a child who otherwise meets the residency requirements.
The MP further questioned how the law would protect children whose parents are absent or uninvolved.
Where one parent is unknown, living abroad or otherwise absent, she suggested that the parent or guardian with legal authority over the child should be permitted to submit the application independently, without requiring the absent parent's consent or documents.
She extended that recommendation to children living in youth homes or foster care, asking whether a legal guardian or the Court of Guardianship could be authorized to apply for residency on their behalf.
Another issue concerned children whose births were never properly registered because their undocumented parents failed to complete the registration process.
Roseburg questioned how such children would establish that they were born on St. Maarten and suggested allowing alternative documentation, including hospital birth notifications or late registration through the Civil Registry.
She also identified potential inconsistencies in the wording of the proposed ordinance.
One provision refers to children who do not possess Dutch nationality or another nationality. Roseburg questioned whether that wording could be interpreted as applying only to stateless children, rather than also covering children born on St. Maarten who possess a foreign nationality through their Jamaican, Haitian or other foreign parents.
She proposed simplifying the language to refer to persons who do not possess Dutch nationality, ensuring that the intended group is covered.
Although Roseburg's principal recommendation was to remove the parental tax route, she also suggested that if the provision remains, consideration should be given to allowing the requirement to be satisfied by at least one parent rather than both.
She additionally questioned an apparent inconsistency between the draft's introductory considerations, which refer to persons under the age of 16, and the proposed article, which does not clearly establish an upper age limit.
Roseburg sought clarification on whether young adults born and raised on St. Maarten would also qualify and recommended aligning the wording or introducing transitional arrangements.
Wescot-Williams raised further questions concerning the responsibilities of parents and the proposed tax requirement.
Referring to concerns raised by the Council of Advice, she questioned whether the legislation adequately considered situations in which parents have been working or conducting business and paying taxes but failed to arrange their children's residency documentation.
She asked whether consideration had been given to holding parents accountable for neglecting those responsibilities, rather than allowing them to escape responsibility while government attempts to correct the resulting problems for their children.
Wescot-Williams also questioned whether requiring 10 consecutive years of tax payments was realistic and whether the provision had been sufficiently examined in practice.
The Chairlady further sought clarification about reducing the qualifying age from 16 to 10.
She questioned whether the original age of 16 may have been intended to recognize that older children are more capable of understanding and pursuing their legal rights. At age 10, she observed, a child would still depend heavily on parents, guardians or other responsible adults to initiate the necessary procedures.
Beyond the proposed legal provisions, both MPs expressed concern that Ottley had not received responses from government ministers despite requesting their input.
Wescot-Williams emphasized that the lack of a government position was particularly troubling because the draft legislation proposes that the law take effect on a date to be determined by government.
She warned that Parliament could approve the initiative only for implementation to encounter difficulties afterward if the relevant ministries disagreed with its provisions or were unprepared to execute them.
The Chairlady recommended obtaining a formal government response, including inviting the Minister of Justice to Parliament to explain the ministry's position before the legislative process is concluded.
Roseburg similarly described the lack of government responses as unfortunate, particularly given the importance of addressing the legal circumstances of children who have grown up on St. Maarten without residency.
She also questioned how Parliament should proceed when the Social Economic Council (SER) is unable to provide the required advice because of its operational difficulties, warning that such circumstances can hamper the legislative responsibilities of MPs.
Both MPs made clear that their contributions were intended to improve the legislation and ensure that the children Ottley seeks to protect are not excluded because of technical wording, parental neglect or circumstances outside their control.
Roseburg stressed the importance of raising these concerns during the current stage of deliberations, allowing time for adjustments before the proposed ordinance advances further.
Ottley's initiative seeks to reduce the qualifying age for residency from 16 to 10 and address situations in which children born and raised on St. Maarten remain undocumented because they cannot satisfy the existing requirement of continuous legal admission since birth.
