MP Meyers: “Are We Citizens or Subjects?” says Ottley's draft legislation has his support

GREAT BAY--While Parliament debated MP Omar Ottley's proposed amendments to the National Ordinance regulating admission to and expulsion from St. Maarten, MP Franklin Meyers challenged the country to confront what he described as the deeper reality beneath the policy discussion, asking whether St. Maarten’s people are Dutch citizens in practice or Dutch subjects living under a system where key decisions remain “not ours to give.”

Speaking during the Central Committee meeting, Meyers argued that the residency reform under discussion is necessary and it has his support, but that it also exposes the limits of St. Maarten’s autonomy in defining belonging, opportunity, and the long-term future of young people raised on the island.

Member of Parliament Omar Ottley today 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.

Meyers commended MP Omar Ottley for bringing forward the initiative law, saying elected representatives are supposed to identify problems and actively work toward solutions that make conditions better for future generations. He said the issue has been talked about for years, but that too many young people have been harmed by a technicality in the law and an administrative reality that blocks progress after compulsory education is completed.

He pointed to the loss of potential created when students, including top performers, cannot access higher education because of their documentation status, describing the long-term impact as a form of brain drain that St. Maarten can ill afford. In his view, the country’s most valuable resource is its human resource, and leaving capable young people behind weakens the society, the economy, and the country’s capacity to develop.

In framing the broader context, Meyers described St. Maarten’s situation as shaped by a colonial arrangement, saying the country cannot grant Dutch nationality and therefore cannot fully reward the achievements and good behavior of young people in the way other countries might.

He contrasted that limitation with examples abroad where exceptional contributions can lead to faster citizenship outcomes, and argued that St. Maarten’s inability to make such determinations on its own underscores the uncomfortable question he raised in Parliament about citizenship versus subjecthood. He further suggested that the conversation cannot avoid the larger issue of identity, belonging, and who gets to define what it means to be a St. Maartener particularly in a society where family histories often cross islands and borders.

He argued that the island’s reality is mixed, with many families spanning different islands and backgrounds, and said that despite how people may feel culturally, there is “no St. Maarteness” in a legal sense that St. Maarten itself can define or grant. In that context, although the debate was not about nationality, he thought it was important and he tied the issue back to the wider point that Dutch nationality is not something St. Maarten can give, which is why he questioned whether the country functions as citizens with full authority or as subjects operating within a system where belonging is decided elsewhere.

Drawing on personal experience, Meyers said he could relate to the complexities that shape status and identity, noting he was born outside St. Maarten (Statia) due to family relocation through the former Netherlands Antilles police force (his father was Chief), despite deep roots on both sides of the island. He used that reality to underline why the law must be grounded in the lived circumstances of residents, not in assumptions that do not match how St. Maarten families actually exist. He also pressed for clarity on transitional realities, asking what happens to those who are already at or beyond the ages discussed in the amendment and who are currently caught in the same gaps described in the real-life examples presented during the meeting.

At the same time, Meyers warned that compassion must be paired with responsibility and clear expectations, raising the question of how the country should deal with cases where individuals who benefit from the system later engage in criminal activity or show no appreciation for what St. Maarten offers. He referenced Anguilla as an example of a stricter approach where family documentation renewals can be affected when children become involved in crime, and he suggested St. Maarten should also be clear about what it wants for the country while it expands protections for children who were born and raised locally. He said St. Maarten should welcome those seeking a better life and contributing positively, while ensuring the country does not create pathways that ignore accountability and public safety concerns.

Meyers concluded by stressing that the initiative has his support, while signaling that refinements may still be required to strengthen the draft and protect execution. He said the country must start dealing directly with social issues that affect St. Maarten, not indirectly, and that Parliament has a responsibility to leave the country better than it found it, especially when the lives of children and the future of the workforce are at stake.

‍