PHILIPSBURG: --- Less than five weeks after the Ministry of Justice launched its new Foreigners Management System (FMS) with promises of faster processing, centralized records and greater efficiency, information obtained by SMN News from within the immigration operation paints a troubling picture of the transition from the previous CRM system.
According to an interview obtained by SMN News, immigration personnel are reportedly still struggling with outstanding applications from CRM, historical information has not yet been fully incorporated into FMS, and employees are having to search through available records and, in some cases, reconstruct work connected to applications originating in the previous system.
The revelations raise serious questions about whether FMS was operationally ready when it went live on July 8, 2026, and, more importantly, whether CRM was phased out before the information and pending applications contained in that system were fully transferred and accessible through FMS.
The concerns are particularly significant because the Ministry of Justice had publicly announced months earlier that testing of the new system had been successful.
Government Said Testing Was Successful
In October 2025, the Ministry of Justice announced that the testing phase of its new online residence-permit system had been successfully completed.
According to the Ministry's announcement, Immigration and Border Protection Services (IBPS) personnel conducted controlled testing covering the different stages of the process, while lawyers, government agencies and other external users were also involved.
The Ministry stated that the testing confirmed that the system was functioning as intended.
The government identified Stichting Beheer ICT Rechtshandhaving (SBIR) and Advanced Computer Technologies Services (ACTS) as implementing the system through a joint venture.
Justice Minister Nathalie Tackling said the objective was to establish a secure, efficient and user-friendly platform.
FMS was eventually launched on July 8, 2026.
But information now emerging from inside the immigration operation raises questions about what happened between successful testing and the actual migration from CRM to FMS.
Insider: Backlog from CRM still being worked
During the interview obtained by SMN News, a person speaking from within the operation described significant difficulties involving applications that remained in CRM when the transition took place.
According to the source, personnel are trying to complete the backlog left in the old system.
“Everybody's working to try and get all the backlogs that are left in the old system finalized,” the source explained.
The source said staff received information indicating what applications existed but did not necessarily have those applications already entered and available on FMS.
“None of those ain't get to enter the new system yet,” the source said while discussing applications originating in the previous environment.
The source further described situations where work associated with applications previously processed in CRM reportedly has to be reconstructed.
According to the interview, if a permit had already progressed through parts of the process under CRM, employees may have information showing what was done but still have to draft the permit again.
“We have to redraft it over again,” the source explained.
“We only have information for what — so we are drafting the permits from all of that over again. It's complicated.”
If accurate, that raises an obvious question: Why was the previous CRM system phased out before every pending application and its supporting information had been successfully transferred into FMS?
Historical residency information is critical
An even more serious concern involves historical immigration records.
Immigration officials must be able to establish an applicant's residence history, including previous permits and possible gaps in legal residency.
That information becomes particularly important when an individual applies for permanent residence or another status where previous lawful residence must be verified.
The source was specifically asked whether immigration personnel currently have a computer system through which they can readily access the records of people who have residence permits.
The response was troubling.
“Right now, it is difficult to access that information,” the source said.
According to the interview, some information can still be obtained from systems that existed before the transition, but employees are waiting for historical information to be incorporated into FMS.
“What we need will have to wait for FMS, the new system, to take all the data,” the source explained, adding that the information then has to be entered into the new system.
The interviewer then posed the obvious practical problem: What happens when someone applies for permanent residency and immigration needs to establish whether that person had a gap in residency?
The response was blunt.
“We have to do a lot of searches, search, searching. A lot of searching,” the source said.
Applicants could be asked for their old permits
The interview becomes even more concerning when the discussion turns specifically to verification of a person's historical residency.
The source explained that a recent extension could potentially be verified because documents previously uploaded could show when an application was submitted and when the previous permit expired.
But establishing a longer immigration history for someone seeking permanent residence appears more complicated.
“For me to check that I would probably have to call in the person to bring whatever other resident permits they had to really verify it,” the source said.
That statement demands clarification from the Ministry of Justice.
If government previously received, processed and approved an individual's residence permits, why should that individual potentially have to produce old permits again because government transitioned from CRM to FMS?
More importantly, what happens if the applicant no longer possesses every historical permit?
Could an applicant's immigration status or permanent-residence application be affected because government itself cannot readily retrieve records that were previously in its possession?
The interview does not establish that anyone has already lost residency rights or been denied permanent residence because of the transition. SMN News therefore makes no such assertion.
But the possibility makes the integrity and completeness of the CRM-to-FMS data migration a matter requiring urgent public explanation.
Government already admitted migration delays
The concerns contained in the interview do not exist entirely in isolation.
Only 12 days after the July 8 launch, the Ministry of Justice publicly acknowledged delays affecting some immigration permit applications.
On July 20, the Ministry attributed those delays to migrating existing records into the new online environment and said additional time was required to complete the process securely and accurately.
Applications submitted before the transition were consequently experiencing longer-than-usual processing times.
Government characterized the situation as temporary and said new applications submitted through the online portal continued to be received and processed normally.
That official statement is significant.
It independently confirms that the migration of existing immigration information was not entirely completed without delays when FMS went live.
The unanswered question is how extensive the problem actually is.
If CRM had the information, where is it now?
The Ministry promoted FMS as a major improvement over previous immigration processing arrangements.
Among the promised benefits was a centralized and secure digital immigration database, improved recordkeeping and case management, and faster and more efficient decision-making.
But if employees must search CRM-era records, work from information sheets, reconstruct permits, or request historical documents from applicants while waiting for data to become fully available in FMS, then the Ministry must explain what portion of the immigration database was actually migrated and operational when FMS went live.
There is also a fundamental difference between launching a portal capable of accepting new applications and having an immigration-management system containing the complete historical information required by the civil servants who must adjudicate those applications.
That distinction now lies at the center of the controversy.
Was FMS Ready — Or was only the front end ready?
The Ministry's October 2025 announcement that testing confirmed the system was functioning as intended now deserves renewed scrutiny.
What exactly was tested?
Was only the submission and processing functionality tested, or was a complete migration of historical CRM data also tested?
Was FMS tested using the actual volume of historical immigration records that would be required in a live environment?
Did the Ministry conduct reconciliation testing to confirm that the information contained in CRM was accurately and completely reproduced in FMS?
Were pending applications individually reconciled before CRM was phased out?
And, most importantly, who signed off that the CRM-to-FMS migration was sufficiently complete for the new system to go live?
Those questions cannot be answered merely by pointing out that new applicants can submit applications electronically.
A functioning immigration system must do more than accept an application. Officials must be able to establish the applicant's immigration history, retrieve supporting documents, determine previous decisions, and verify whether legal residency has been continuous.
Exemption Letters also raised during interview
The interview separately touched on exemption or extension letters and allegations of possible irregularities within the process.
The source explained that a person seeking such consideration writes to the Minister of Justice and that the request goes through the relevant department for assessment before being forwarded to the Minister.
“The applicant has to write a letter to the Minister of Justice,” the source said, explaining that the department examines whether the person qualifies before the matter is sent to the Minister for signature.
The source was also questioned about what happens when an individual had previously been deported.
“Normally no,” the source responded, but immediately cautioned that these matters were not personally handled by the source and that the source did not want to provide incorrect information.
That qualification is important.
The interview also contains allegations concerning possible irregularities involving particular cases. SMN News has not independently verified those allegations and therefore does not present them as established facts.
However, the allegations provide another reason for the Ministry to explain the criteria, review process and safeguards governing exemption decisions.
Parliament must demand the numbers
This issue is far bigger than an inconvenient software transition.
Residence permits determine whether people can legally reside and work in Sint Maarten. Immigration records can affect families, employers, workers and individuals seeking permanent residency.
Parliament should therefore demand that the Minister of Justice provide concrete numbers rather than general assurances.
The Ministry should disclose how many applications were pending in CRM when FMS went live on July 8; how many of those applications have been completely transferred into FMS; how many remain outstanding; and how many require employees to reconstruct or redraft work previously completed under CRM.
The Minister should also disclose what percentage of historical residence records have been migrated from CRM into FMS; whether every previous residence permit can currently be retrieved through FMS; whether immigration employees still require CRM or other legacy systems to verify applicants' histories; and whether applicants are presently being asked to provide old permits or documents that had previously been submitted to government.
Government must further explain whether any residence, extension or permanent-residence application has been delayed, rejected or otherwise affected because historical information could not immediately be retrieved following the transition.
Who Certified the System Ready?
There are also questions for those responsible for implementing FMS.
Government previously identified Stichting Beheer ICT Rechtshandhaving (SBIR) and Advanced Computer Technologies Services (ACTS) as implementing the system through a joint venture.
The Ministry should therefore disclose what acceptance criteria had to be satisfied before FMS went live and whether complete CRM data migration formed part of those requirements.
Who certified that FMS was production-ready?
Was there a formal acceptance certificate?
Who signed it?
How much did the development and implementation of FMS cost?
What contractual requirements were imposed concerning CRM data migration?
Were there penalties or warranty provisions if the system could not perform as required after launch?
And has government incurred additional costs since July 8 to correct migration or implementation problems?
These are legitimate accountability questions involving a government information system that handles people's legal immigration status.
“It’s a Mess”
Toward the conclusion of the interview, the source summarized the current situation in remarkably simple terms.
“It’s a mess,” the source said.
That assessment comes from the interview and should not, by itself, be treated as proof that the entire FMS platform is technically nonfunctional.
Government has stated that new applications are being submitted and processed through the new environment.
But government's own acknowledgment of migration-related delays, combined with the operational difficulties described in the interview, creates a legitimate basis for demanding a detailed explanation of what happened during the CRM-to-FMS transition.
The central question is therefore no longer simply whether the FMS website works.
The real question is whether government launched a new immigration platform before the underlying records, historical data and unfinished applications required to operate Sint Maarten's immigration administration had been completely and reliably transferred from CRM.
Government promised that FMS would deliver faster processing, centralized records, greater accuracy and improved efficiency.
If CRM was phased out before all of its applications, documents, and historical residency information were successfully migrated and accessible through FMS, then the Minister of Justice must explain who authorized the switch, who certified the system as ready, and why Sint Maarten's immigration administration was allowed to enter a transition that an insider now describes simply as “a mess.”
