MP Ottley defends initiative to amend law on admission to and expulsion from St. Maarten for children born on St. Maarten

GREAT BAY--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.

While MP Ottley's amendments were specifically focused, the Central Committee meeting at times took what some would call a "left turn" with MPs opening expansive debates on general immigration topics, which Ottley was quick to point out that he was not there to solve overnight and reminded his colleagues that they too are MPs with the power to act on the issues they have raised. MPs also had several other observations and questions about the actual initiative (see related stories).

Ottley told Parliament the initiative is focused on a problem he said is widely visible across the community, namely young people who were born on St. Maarten, grew up on the island, attended local schools, and still reach adolescence without formal residency documentation. He said the issue surfaces repeatedly during election seasons and in everyday life, when residents discover they cannot vote, cannot travel easily, and face barriers to higher education and employment because their status is unresolved.

It is his first draft legislative initiative, which has successfully completed its full legal trajectory. This is one of 5 legislations MP Ottley has in the pipeline. The initiative defended on Tuesday carries the title: “Born Here, Born to Be Here.”

What the draft law changes in general

Ottley explained that the initiative targets two specific amendments to the ordinance:

The first amendment lowers the age threshold in the law from 16 to 10 years for children born on St. Maarten who do not have Dutch nationality, replacing the current standard that requires they have been “continuously admitted” since birth. Under the proposed wording, eligibility would be based on proof that the child has lived on St. Maarten since birth, including proof such as registration with a childcare provider or educational institution.

The second amendment introduces an additional pathway for residency by operation of law for children born on St. Maarten whose parents have demonstrated long-term contribution through compliance with tax-related payment obligations. Ottley said the proposal adds a provision stating that a child born on St. Maarten, who does not possess Dutch nationality or another nationality, may be registered where the parents have fulfilled the payment obligation under St. Maarten tax legislation for 10 consecutive years prior to the birth of the child.

In other words...

1) The wording change shifts the test from “permit status” to “presence since birth.”

Ottley highlighted that the current article hinges on the phrase “continuously admitted since birth,” which was previously understood to mean a child had to maintain valid permits without gaps. His proposed revision replaces that concept with having lived on St. Maarten since birth, and he noted that eligibility can be supported through practical proof like registration with a childcare provider or school. The effect is that residency gaps tied to parents would no longer automatically disqualify a child under this route.  He argued that, beginning in 2020, an unwritten approach was applied under a humanitarian basis to provide documentation to minors born on St. Maarten who were undocumented due to circumstances outside their control, and he described the current initiative as an attempt to codify that practice into law so that outcomes do not depend solely on ministerial discretion.

“Today is our official attempt to make the unwritten policy law and ensure that the rights of our children born here are protected,” Ottley told Parliament.

2) The new tax-based pathway is tied to specific “payment obligations,” not just a general idea of taxes.

He specified that the 10-year safeguard is anchored in payment obligations under multiple ordinances, not only income tax. He listed frameworks including the National Income Tax Ordinance, and social insurance related ordinances such as old age pension, widow and orphan insurance, accident insurance, and healthcare insurance, framing the requirement as a measurable contribution test rather than a vague standard.

3) The tax-based pathway is presented as separate from parents’ residency legality.

Ottley made the point that this route does not start by asking whether parents are documented, it starts by asking whether they have fulfilled the qualifying payment obligations over the required period. He framed that as both a safeguard against opportunistic migration and a recognition that some parents contribute for years while still falling into administrative gaps, with the child carrying the consequences.

Ottley said the 10-year requirement is intended as a safeguard, arguing that the country should “not open the floodgates” for opportunistic migration linked solely to childbirth, while still protecting children who are born and raised on the island. He described the safeguard as a way to discourage what some describe as “anchor baby” scenarios by tying the automatic status route to a clear demonstration of long-term presence and contribution.

Why Ottley says the amendments are needed

Ottley said documentation gaps have consequences that follow children into adulthood, limiting access to study opportunities abroad, weakening motivation among students who see peers continue their education overseas, and restricting access to formal employment. He referenced statements made publicly about the share of residents whose highest completed level is high school, and linked the conversation to broader socioeconomic impacts, including the island’s tax base and human capital development.

He also pointed to preliminary data shared in Parliament regarding students listed as undocumented in public schools, stating that preliminary figures presented showed 369 students across multiple schools, while cautioning that some cases may involve missing documentation rather than confirmed undocumented status.

Ottley further cited demographic realities from the 2022 census population figure of 41,901, including the share of foreign-born residents, arguing that childbirth on the island is a predictable outcome and that the legal framework must address the status of children whose documentation is not properly handled by parents, employers, or administrative processes.

MP Roseburg's Draft

MP Ottley mentioned MP Sjamira Roseburg in his presentation at the point where he was comparing approaches and explaining why he structured his amendment the way he did. Ottley said he would be “remiss” not to acknowledge that Roseburg had also submitted a similar amendment, then he drew a clear distinction between the two drafts on the age threshold and the criteria used to prove eligibility.

Ottley told Parliament Roseburg’s proposal lowered the age from 16 to 12, while he opted for 10 because he wanted St. Maarten to align with Aruba and move toward a uniform standard within the Kingdom. He presented that as a policy choice aimed at removing ambiguity and standardizing the rule rather than arguing that one age is inherently “right” and the other “wrong.” In that same comparison, he said Roseburg’s draft also introduced an education-focused element, describing her requirement as proof of educational enrollment for a set number of consecutive years, while his amendment added a separate pathway tied to parents meeting a 10-year tax obligation as a safeguard against opportunistic use of childbirth to secure status.

By raising Roseburg’s draft in that moment, Ottley was positioning his initiative as part of a wider parliamentary effort to address the same underlying problem, while justifying his own selections as a balance between child protection and safeguards. He used the comparison to explain that his aim was to place the child’s long-term residence and integration at the center, but also to add conditions that protect the country from misuse, especially through the 10-year contribution requirement.

Process and timeline

Ottley recapped that the draft initiative was sent to the Council of Advice for advice on October 15, 2024, and that Parliament received the Council’s advice. Based on that advice, he said the draft was also submitted to the Social Economic Council (SER) for review. He stated that a reaction to the advice was submitted on September 25, 2025, along with an amendment.

MP Omar Ottley told Parliament that his draft did not remain in its original form and that he adjusted it after receiving feedback from the advisory bodies. He said the first version was sent to the Council of Advice, the Council issued its remarks and recommendations, and he incorporated those points into a revised draft before continuing the process.

In his response, he pushed back against suggestions from MPs that the proposal was rushed, stressing that it has been in the system for more than a year and that the revisions reflect that he took the COA and SER process seriously before bringing it to Parliament for debate.

Responding to concerns raised during the meeting about data constraints and the pace of the process, Ottley said the initiative has been in motion for more than a year and rejected suggestions that it was rushed. He also stated that requests for supporting data have repeatedly encountered gaps, including instances where information requested from the executive branch was not provided.

MP Francisco Lacroes

In support of his party leader (Ottley), MP Francisco Lacroes urged Parliament to stop treating the legal status of children born on St. Maarten as a question that still needs to be proven, arguing that it should never have reached the point of debate. He anchored his remarks in the case of a former student, Richard Charles, whom he said was born on the island, later deported to Haiti, and killed there. Lacroes described Charles as a top student who lost scholarship opportunities after paperwork gaps tied to his parents, and he warned that when young people are shut out of jobs, education, and legal recognition, the consequences show up as hunger, exclusion, and long-term damage to their future.

He criticized the emphasis on data and procedural hesitation as mentioned by some MPs, saying the reality is already visible in the lives of children who were born and raised on St. Maarten and know no other home. Lacroes framed the issue as one of equality, belonging, and identity, arguing that denying workable pathways to legal status effectively discriminates against young people shaped by the island’s schools and culture. He also pointed to St. Maarten’s mixed demographic history, cautioning against narrow definitions of who “belongs,” and called for the country to take care of its own by ensuring children born on St. Maarten are not left to age into adulthood without protection under the law.

"Me, Me, Me"

MP Omar Ottley addressed MP Sjamira Roseburg (see related story) directly, saying the discussion took what he considered an “unfortunate twist” when it shifted from the substance of the amendment to questions of recognition. He stressed that he did not “steal” anyone’s work, and said his draft was developed through his own effort, his staff’s work, and at his own expense. Ottley said his initiative was not submitted first, but that he moved forward because he does not “play with the people’s business,” adding that when it is time to act, he acts.

Ottley said he was expecting feedback focused on strengthening the law, but felt the debate was pulled into “me, me, me” claims about who started what. He argued that the public does not judge laws by who introduced them, and that in practice, the credit tends to go to whoever executes it at the government level. He also noted he has been willing to share resources, including offering Roseburg the contact details of his legislative draftsman when asked, and maintained that the two proposals are largely similar, with differences such as the age choice. Ottley closed that point by urging members to keep the focus on deliverables and the children affected, rather than political scoring.

Ottley emphasized that the two amendments serve different purposes and should not be conflated. He said the 10-year tax obligation requirement is intended to apply to the pathway that grants a child residency at birth based on the parents’ long-term contribution, while the age reduction from 16 to 10 is a separate pathway focused on the child’s residence on St. Maarten since birth and evidence of integration through consistent schooling and daily life.

Ottley said the debate in Parliament on Tuesday confirmed that the underlying problem is widely recognized across Parliament, stressing that the focus should remain on children and on producing a workable, enforceable law. Closing his remarks, he urged members to prioritize the country’s responsibilities toward children born and raised on St. Maarten, adding: “A nation’s morality is revealed by whose suffering it chooses to ignore. I will not be one to ignore the suffering of the people.”

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.

‍

‍