Broad support in Parliament for child residency reform, but MPs urge workable criteria, strong safeguards, and Government alignment

GREAT BAY--Members of Parliament today in the Central Committee meeting weighed the practical and social consequences of leaving children born on St. Maarten without legal residency status because of documentation gaps tied to adults. While the initiative law being debated was initiated and defended by MP Omar Ottley, contributions from MPs across the floor emphasized that the issue is real, recurring, and deeply connected to education access, social stability, and government’s ability to manage public services. Several MPs urged that the final legislative product be tightened so it is workable, enforceable, and aligned with the institutions that must execute it.

MP Ottley on Tuesday defended his draft initiative law to amend the National Ordinance regulating admission to and expulsion from St. Maarten, outlining proposed changes aimed at strengthening the legal position of undocumented children born on St. Maarten who later find themselves without residency status due to administrative gaps tied to their parents (see related story).

MP Ludmilla De Weever spoke from years of direct experience assisting undocumented children, including cases involving children whose documentation was managed through an orphanage setting and later fell apart after the loss of adult support structures. She described how long humanitarian pathways can take, and warned that when young people reach adulthood without legitimate paperwork, they are left stuck and exposed.

De Weever said compulsory education means children will be in the school system regardless of status, raising the question of how government uses education records to identify and address cases earlier, instead of only confronting the issue when the child becomes an adult and problems escalate. She also highlighted the island’s split administrative reality, pointing to cases where movement between the Dutch and French sides can trigger harsh outcomes, including deportation, and urged greater operational cohesion so children who grew up on the island are not treated as disposable because of administrative gaps. She also raised concern over inconsistencies that families report when legal requirements shift over time, including mixed-parentage cases where one sibling has documents while another is unable to work or study because the rules changed and were not clearly understood or communicated.

MP Dimar Labega voiced support for the intent and tied the debate to lived experience, describing how a young person born on St. Maarten, who performed well in school, struggled through a lengthy process before finally resolving documentation barriers and moving forward with studies. Labega questioned how the proposed criteria would function in practice when parents fall short of a requirement just before the qualifying threshold, warning that rigid consecutive-year rules could still place the child’s future at the mercy of adult compliance.

MP Raeyhon Peterson said the objective is widely supported, but cautioned that Parliament must avoid passing a law that later stalls at implementation. He urged that the advisory process (from SER and Council of Advice) be treated seriously and that the law be prepared in a way that executive agencies can execute, noting that St. Maarten already has laws that remain inactive because execution was not secured. Peterson appealed for the debate to stay focused on outcomes for children, not political friction among MPs, and advised that careful drafting now is the best way to prevent a breakdown later when the proposal reaches departments responsible for enforcement.

MP Veronica Janssen-Webster expressed strong support for reform while stressing that clarity and consistency are essential, particularly because discretion can produce uneven outcomes. She said she had consulted with someone familiar with the issue who described cases where children are denied based on perceived income levels or are treated differently depending on background, appearance, or connections, which in her view strengthens the case for clear legal standards rather than ad hoc decision-making. Janssen-Webster also emphasized the need for stronger supporting research, and argued that data collection does not have to rely only on population-wide statistics. She pointed to practical sources such as school records and suggested that targeted research tools, including surveys and structured information gathering, could strengthen the legislative file, especially on questions like how many undocumented students were actually born on St. Maarten.

MP Lyndon Lewis said the problem of undocumented status for people raised on St. Maarten is not new, noting that a similar law was presented near the end of his tenure by his party leader Christophe Emmnauel. He shared that he could have fallen into the same situation himself if his father, a naturalized Dutchman from Nevis, did not already hold a Dutch passport, and he pointed to long-standing cases of adults in their late 30s who grew up on the island but never secured legal residency due to loopholes and systemic failure. Lewis argued that the issue goes beyond children “born here” to include those who migrated as infants or young children and did not choose to relocate, and he said humanitarian provisions should be strengthened accordingly.

MP Ardwell Irion focused on the reality that data limitations are a persistent obstacle for Members of Parliament working on initiative laws, and argued that the absence of centralized figures cannot become an excuse for inaction. He pointed to recurring cases known across the community and referenced the presence of undocumented persons within existing systems, including health insurance contributions, as part of the broader context. Irion urged that the legislative effort be advanced with urgency and stated that his faction is prepared to support the work needed to strengthen the proposal so it can move forward.

MP Darryl York framed the discussion around identity, belonging, and the unfairness of children being blocked by expired permits, missed forms, or employer failures years earlier. He warned against reducing the debate to immigration politics alone, and urged that the reform be understood as a stability measure aimed at preventing legal gaps that later shut young people out of education, travel, and naturalization pathways. York also acknowledged concerns about parental negligence, but said that should not translate into lifelong punishment for the child, and urged that the law close the gap in a way that protects children while maintaining reasonable safeguards.

MP York also addressed the political reality that can derail legislative work, saying he understands why MPs sometimes choose to go their separate ways in drafting and submitting laws. He pointed to instances where an MP pays out of pocket for legislation, treats it as “their baby,” and then sees it intercepted or taken up by someone else for credit. York said he has witnessed situations where a draft initiative is effectively “hijacked,” with another party moving on it after behind-the-scenes conversations, and he suggested that dynamics like that can discourage collaboration even when working together would otherwise make sense.

MP Egbert Doran criticized what he described as selective emphasis on procedure and statistics, arguing that Parliament must apply the same seriousness across all topics, not only when convenient. He urged that the initiative be strengthened so that once it is approved, it cannot be easily stalled or undermined during execution. Doran said St. Maarten’s realities, including mixed family histories and a complex demographic makeup, require policy choices grounded in lived experience, and he encouraged improvements that make the proposal more airtight at the point it reaches the executive branch.

MP Doran criticized what he described as hypocrisy and “doing it the right way” depending on convenience. He argued it is inconsistent to question readiness and demand more data on this initiative while showing less concern for advisory warnings and legal requirements on other major matters, and he framed that as unfair to the parliamentary process and to the institutions that already reviewed the draft. Doran said Parliament should keep a straight line in how it treats compliance, advice, and evidence, rather than shifting standards based on politics, and he urged members to focus on strengthening the proposal so it cannot be easily stalled when it reaches the executive side.

Chairlady Sarah Wescot-Williams supported the intention of the initiative while cautioning that the matter sits within wider demographic and immigration challenges that St. Maarten must confront more directly. She said data exists in different reports and studies, but questioned whether the country uses what is already collected, including information produced under major reform and reporting frameworks. Wescot-Williams urged attention to consolidation, collaboration, and alignment with government, warning that without executive readiness and agreement, Parliament risks producing a law that is approved but not put into effect. She also noted that government is not formally required at this stage to provide detailed commentary upon receiving a draft initiative law, but stressed that early engagement is still crucial if Parliament expects implementation after ratification.

The Chairlady cautioned that talk of laws being “hijacked” risks derailing a debate that should stay centered on the policy problem and the best way to solve it. She said she found it unfortunate that comments of that nature entered the discussion, because they can shift attention away from the substance of the draft and create unnecessary tension that could weaken broad parliamentary support. Without assuming who was being referenced, she urged members to avoid rhetoric that distracts from the work at hand and to keep the focus on collaboration, consolidation, and producing legislation that can be executed.

MP Ottley has to return to Parliament at a later date to answer the questions from MPs posed in the Central Committee meeting of Tuesday. After that the law will move to a Public Meeting of Parliament for voting.

‍