MP Roseburg: Addressing the legal status of undocumented children born on St. Maarten “is too important for politics or credit”

GREAT BAY--Despite having submitted a similar draft law to Parliament first, Member of Parliament Sjamira Roseburg on Tuesday welcomed the debate on MP Omar Ottley's proposed amendments to the National Ordinance regulating admission to and expulsion from St. Maarten, reaffirming her support for reforms that protect children who were born on St. Maarten but remain undocumented due to gaps beyond their control. Roseburg's own draft initiative legislation was also submitted for advice to the Social Economic Council (SER) with no reply to date, underscoring that the subject has been a consistent priority for her since the campaign period and not a new concern raised for political timing.

Roseburg told Parliament that she would not be against the initiative now being defended, because of the real harm caused when children grow up without legal certainty and the fact that it's about getting the legislation to the finish line, not who brought it there. She said the question is not who brings the law, but whether the law improves lives. However, Roseburg made clear that the manner in which Parliament moves forward matters, because the children and families affected cannot afford an outcome where a law is passed but cannot be implemented. She cautioned that passing legislation for appearance, recognition, or political scoring would be irresponsible if it leaves gaps that prevent execution by the relevant ministries.

Roseburg expressed regret that despite discussions with MP Omar Ottley prior to the debate about working together, the effort to merge approaches into one unified legislative package did not materialize. She said there was an understanding that politics should be elevated by combining expertise across party lines, especially where the issue touches children, and she maintained that she approached the matter with an inclusive mindset. She explained that she is raising this in the open not to personalize the debate, but to be honest about the legislative process and the missed opportunity to consolidate parallel efforts earlier, in line with guidance raised by advisory bodies about coordination and consolidation.

During the debate, Roseburg pressed for clarity on why the proposed route was tied to parental tax compliance, warning that children could still be jeopardized by an adult’s failure to meet obligations, even when the child has been present in the school system for years under compulsory education. She asked whether an education-centered criterion, tied to documented enrollment over a defined period, would better protect the child’s interests and reduce the risk that a parent’s administrative failure continues to block a child’s future. Roseburg also questioned whether the two initiatives could still be aligned into a single stronger amendment, in the benefit of the people, rather than moving forward on parallel tracks that could complicate execution.

Roseburg referenced concerns raised by the Council of Advice and the SER about the need for supporting information, stakeholder input, and clarity around feasibility. She noted that the SER had indicated it could not provide full advice without additional information, and she asked directly whether that information was awaited, whether answers gathered through parliamentary questions were submitted back to the SER, and whether the process is now positioned for the SER to finalize its view. She also asked for the positions of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice on the proposed amendments and whether those responsible for execution consider the proposal workable in practice. In the same spirit, she raised whether the Immigration Department was consulted and whether input was received, given that implementation will require administrative readiness and clear procedures.

Roseburg further requested clarity on the categories referenced in the draft, including undocumented and stateless children, and whether data exists that can distinguish between the two, cautioning that precision matters when building a child-focused law that must stand up to scrutiny and application. She emphasized that the moment for detailed questions is during the debate stage, because this is when Parliament has the opportunity to address weaknesses before the law reaches a stage where implementation fails and children pay the price.

Addressing broader concerns raised by colleagues, Roseburg said she understands the urgency behind the topic, but stressed that urgency must be matched with responsibility. She reiterated that her questions should not be taken personal, and that she is not opposing the principle of the reform. Her goal, she said, is to ensure that when Parliament votes, it does so knowing the final product is clear, complete, and enforceable.

“This matter is too important for politics or credit,” Roseburg indicated, adding that she will do what she must to see the issue through responsibly. She said she welcomes continued deliberations that remain focused on child protection, legal clarity, consultation, and execution, so that Parliament delivers a practical solution that ends uncertainty for children born on St. Maarten.

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.

‍