Two sides of the same coin? Diaspora Investment and Citizenship-by-Investment

2018/03/05 Leave a comment

Good commentary on the differences:

It’s no secret that many small states struggle to acquire the finance needed to support their development goals. The Commonwealth Secretariat has recently been exploring the potential of diaspora investment to support development. A recent Commonwealth publication estimates that on average, small states could raise approximately 4.52% of GNI per annum from their migrants alone (excluding first and second generation migrants) as compared to 1.18% of GNI for Commonwealth non-small states (Tavakoli and Raja, 2017).

Similar, but less frequently examined, sources of funding are citizenship-by-investment programmes.These programmes grant citizenship to people who make substantial financial investments in a country. While many countries offer a route to citizenship after a period of residency, with citizenship-by-investment programmes, residency is not often required. This revenue raising scheme is particularly popular with many Commonwealth small states — Antigua and Barbuda, Cyprus, Dominica, Grenada, Malta, St Kitts & Nevis, St Lucia, and Vanuatu all have such programmes. The investments required are often real estate purchases, set term investment in government bonds, or donations to particular charities or funds and the minimum amounts range from $100,000 USD in Dominica to $2.4million USD in Cyprus.

On the face of it, diaspora investment and citizenship-by-investment programmes are two sides of the same coin. They both seek to increase investment by appealing to people’s affinity for a country through its citizenship or would-be citizenship. However, I would argue that their risks and rewards of each are quite different.

With diaspora investment, there is an identifiable pool of people ready and willing to invest in the country of their roots. Their interest in the country is stable and often not subject to the fluctuation of economic cycles. As diaspora investment can take many forms – investment in real estate, bonds, or businesses – the financial benefits can range from increasing government revenue to job creation and adding to GDP. However, the size of the investment can vary greatly from person to person. Furthermore, many diaspora investors may demand higher accountability from the government before investing, or may seek more political rights in the country.

On the other hand, citizenship-by-investment programmes offer an immediate substantial investment which increases government revenue. However, the investment vehicles do not tend to lead to job creation and may have an adverse impact on the property market in small countries with scarce land. Additionally, given that countries offering these programmes are competing with each other for investors, there is the possibility of a race to the bottom. Finally, there is the reputation risk for the country if background checks are not properly conducted.

Given the pros and cons, for my taste, governments would do well to spend more time and effort facilitating diaspora investment as opposed to citizenship-by-investment. I realise however that the issue is completely debatable. Some people argue that criticising citizenship-by-investment undermines sovereignty and attacks a genuine income stream for countries with limited revenue-raising options. Furthermore, some countries don’t have sizeable diaspora communities to make diaspora investment viable. Nonetheless, personally, I think the reputation risks alone outweigh the benefits.

One thing is certain, more research is needed into citizenship-by-investment programmes, including how much money countries actually gain from it.

Where do you stand on the issue? Should more small states consider citizenship-by-investment? Or should more be done to attract investment from diaspora communities around the world?

Source: Two sides of the same coin? Diaspora Investment and Citizenship-by-Investment

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with ,

Toronto runner set to get Canadian citizenship, trump U.S. travel ban

2018/03/03 Leave a comment

Good news story:

It appears Soroush Hatami’s dream to compete in the Boston Marathon is finally about to come true.

“That’s exciting news … There’s a high possibility I can get my passport right on time and I hope I can make it to Boston,” Hatami said.

The 37-year-old, who emigrated from Iran to Toronto in 2013 and is a permanent resident of Canada, is set to receive his Canadian citizenship on Friday afternoon.

It would help clear a major hurdle that has barred him from entering the United States.

Marathon runner stopped in his tracks by Trump travel ban

U.S. Supreme Court allows Trump travel ban on residents of 6 mostly Muslim countries

Last January, an executive order issued by U.S. President Donald Trump blocked citizens of several Muslim-majority nations from entering the United States — including Hatami’s birth country of Iran.

Despite qualifying for the Boston Marathon back in October 2017, Hatami was banned from entering the U.S., based on his Iranian citizenship; a decision he calls “unfair” and “xenophobic”.

With over 30,000 runners annually, the Boston Marathon is one of the most prestigious and well-known marathons in the world. (Tim Bradbury/Getty Images)

“Targeting countries and banning everyone from those countries, doesn’t help with U.S. national security,” Hatami said.

But now, with the runner set to take the oath of citizenship after a months-long application process, he’ll be able to apply for a Canadian passport. According to the Government of Canada’s website, with express processing a new passport can be delivered in two to nine business days.

2018’s Boston Marathon is set for April 16.

Beyond the race, Hatami and fellow long-distance runner Daniel Sellers say they aren’t done fighting against the travel ban and hope to help those who may be caught in similar predicaments.

“That’s great that we’re about to realize our goal. However on the other side, the travel ban is not over and our campaign is not over.”

via Toronto runner set to get Canadian citizenship, trump U.S. travel ban – Toronto – CBC News

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with ,

Good luck with the British citizenship test, Meghan Markle. It’s a mess | Thom Brooks | The Guardian

2018/03/02 Leave a comment

Good pointed commentary – better to have tests that are more general civic knowledge-based, as in Canada, than ones that try to capture obscure facts. A written test, of course, is more administratively efficient and consistent than individual interviews, the main reason it was introduced in Canada in the early 90s:

Meghan Markle is on a fast track from Hollywood to British royalty. She’ll certainly be joining the royal family from the moment of her marriage to Harry in May. And yet, if she wants to remain permanently in the UK, even the wife of the Queen’s grandson must pass a citizenship test.

The test has been sat more than 2m times since its launch in 2005. Anyone applying must correctly answer 18 or more of 24 multiple choice questions to pass – and the test costs £50 for every attempt.

It’s like a bad pub quiz: the test for British citizenship that few Brits could pass. One candidate failed 64 times before finally passing the test, and if you look at what the government’s quiz asks, it’s easy to see why. How many of us know the height of the London Eye, the age of Big Ben’s clock tower, or that Sake Dean Mahomed introduced curry to the UK in opening the Hindoostane Coffee House on George Street, London? These are some of the nearly 3,000 facts in the 180-page test handbook anyone wanting to stay in Britain is expected to know.

The absurdity doesn’t stop there. The test requires knowledge of the numbers of elected representatives in each regional assembly, but not in the House of Commons. Candidates need not know how to report a crime or register with a GP, but must know the approximate size of the Lake District and about 278 historical dates including when the Roman emperor Claudius invaded Britain.

If the citizenship test is meant to help migrants “integrate into society and play a full role in your local community”, there is little evidence to show it succeeds. The test has appeared in three editions and been used for more than a decade, but there has never been a formal consultation on whether its aims are being achieved. So I did it for them.

My 2013 report exposed serious failings, including the test’s impracticality and the many mistakes and omissions. My report made a dozen recommendations for how these problems might be fixed. Despite being raised in parliament, the test remains unchanged.

If left unreformed the test is damaging integration more than it’s enabling it
For my book Becoming British, I interviewed citizens across the UK about the citizenship test. Almost no one believed it helped their integration into a British society where few had even heard of the test. Instead of building bridges, most saw the test as another barrier whose main purpose was to extract additional fees. The lesson to learn here is that the test is currently damaging integration more than it’s enabling it.

There is an opportunity now to get this right as Britain changes its immigration policies after Brexit. Either the test is substantially modified to become a less trivial and fairer test of knowledge required for citizenship, or it should be thrown on the scrap heap.

A citizenship test is not obviously necessary to demonstrate a knowledge of life in the UK or British values. People could instead be tested informally without an exam, for instance by satisfying existing requirements for lawful residency, avoiding a criminal record, paying taxes owed and the like. These are ways in which people do show an understanding of living in this country in harmony with others.

But if the test is kept, change is needed – and a first step would be to make the answers freely available. Displaying knowledge about living in Britain shouldn’t require buying a book with the information in. And rather than the test remaining a block, it should be relaunched as something that is primarily of symbolic importance. In the US, the test is the last step to citizenship with zealously non-partisan questions about who was the first president or which side won the American civil war.

By contrast, half the UK’s test information on education is about setting up the government’s then flagship programme of free schools, but without any mention of a national curriculum, A-levels and more. Such partisanship needs to go. A test aimed at formally recognising the belonging someone has already earned is clearly preferable to what we have.

And if it is revised, it’s critical that there is a public dialogue about what is included. The government imposes this test of Britishness in the public’s name, but it is so alien as to render it absurd. People need to have confidence in our immigration system again, and imposing arbitrary knowledge tests won’t solve it.

Finally, migrants shouldn’t have a veto, but they deserve to have a voice. If the test doesn’t support integration, this needs to be fixed. Second-guessing the experience of migrants like me – who have passed the test and become British citizens – only continues the problem.

via Good luck with the British citizenship test, Meghan Markle. It’s a mess | Thom Brooks | Opinion | The Guardian

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with ,

Brexit: Why French citizenship is not the solution for most Brits in France – The Local

2018/03/01 Leave a comment

Looking forward to seeing a series of similar articles from British expatriates complaining about EU country citizenship requirements.
Most of the articles I have seen to date focus on expatriates who are working elsewhere in the EU; this one appears to be more focussed on retiree concerns:
While the numbers of Brits seeking French nationality has soared since the EU referendum, for the majority of British nationals worried by Brexit becoming French is just not the solution.

Since the 2016 referendum prefectures across France have been inundated with requests from thousands of British nationals applying for French citizenship.

Indeed recent figures showed the number of Brits seeking to become French had soared tenfold since 2015 as worried Brexpats look to guarantee their futures in France.

The numbers only look set to grow as Brexit Day draws nearer, with those Brits who meet the criteria and are prepared to go through the arduous process, look to avoid more limbo.

They know that French nationality will not only allow permanent residence in France but also continued freedom of movement across the EU, something they are not currently guaranteed.

But while just over 3,000 Brits applied for French nationality in 2017 it’s still just a tiny number compared to the overall number of Britons living in France – which is believed to be between 150,000 and 200,000.

That’s because many are simply unwilling or unable to consider becoming French, some for practical reasons and others on principle.

…Research carried out by the group RIFT (Remain in France Together) which campaigns for the rights of Britons in France has revealed that for many, becoming French is the absolute last resort.

Of just over 800 respondents to a survey on citizenship, some 40 percent said they would only take French nationality “as a last resort”, in other words if it was the only way to guarantee their right to remain and work in France.

For many respondents the idea of applying for French citizenship just for personal and practical reasons just doesn’t feel right.

Many spoke of a feeling of hypocrisy when citing their reasons.

Gill Harrison, who lives in the south west of France told The Local: “I never thought of applying for French nationality before all this madness started and feel it would be totally hypocritical to start doing it now, simply to make it easier for me to stay here – that’s not a good enough reason for either me or for the French State, to which – I assume – I would have to swear allegiance.

Jan Letchford from near Narbonne added: “I just think on the principle of honesty, both to me and to France, it just doesn’t sit well with me.”

Other respondents to the survey simply felt resentment at being forced into a lengthy and expensive process due to a referendum they believe was a farce and which some were not even allowed to vote in due to the 15 year limit on expats voting in elections.

‘I already have enough paperwork to deal with in France’

“I object to being obliged to adopt another nationality as a purely administrative ‘flag of convenience’ exercise, just to preserve rights I shouldn’t be losing in the first place,” said one respondent.

“I also object to being obliged – by Brexit supporting voters in the UK, and by the failure of the UK Government negotiating team to safeguard my interests – to embark on a time-consuming, potentially costly paper chase which has no guaranteed outcome when I already have more than enough paperwork to do in France, just to stand still,” said the respondent.

For others who would only gain French nationality as a last resort, the idea of switching from British to French nationality does not fit well, especially when they see themselves as neither.

“I have no ‘patriotic’ feelings about GB (especially now!) and don’t really have any towards France (although I want to continue living here as this is where my present life is – who knows for the future?),” said one respondent to the survey.

“What I really prize is my European citizenship but, sadly, that is the one that is most at risk.”

But it’s not just issues around identity, hypocrisy and resentment that are preventing many from applying. Others simply feel they would not meet the criteria, which not only requires five years residence in France but also the ability to speak French to a certain level – AND prove it in an interview –  and to be able to show you can pay your own way in France.

Julian Silver, 52 who lives in the Tarn told The Local becoming French was not an option due to the fact he doesn’t speak the language well enough.

“I could say go on lessons but firstly that is impractical and expensive. And I seem to have a mental block on linguistics of any kind…even computer languages. I had a stroke 10 years ago and had to re-learn to speak afterwards. But I find foreign languages particularly difficult.”

While the language may be barrier for some, for others it was poor health and for many the idea of amassing documents such as parents birth certificates and having them translated into French before waiting another 18 months for an answer was enough to put them off.

“It’s 18 months out of my life that I shouldn’t have to lose. It’s expensive. It’s stressful. It’s not what I would have chosen. And at the end of it all I could still end up with less rights than I’ve got now. It’s not a panacea,” said one respondent to the RIFT survey.

For some taking French nationality was not an option because they would be unable to prove they had “sufficient and stable resources.”

“Taking French citizenship is hardly an option as I’m officially a ‘burden on the state’, in receipt of RSA and Aide au logement. Since 2012 my self-employed accounts show a decreasing ability to support myself,” one British citizen in France who wanted to remain anonymous told The Local.

Another told The Local: “We basically living on savings from the sale of our house in the UK and leading a very simple (cheap) lifestyle being as self sufficient as possible. As a result, we feel that we would not meet the monetary requirements for citizenship.”

Others cited their fear that the British government might make things more difficult for them if they obtain French nationality, although given that they will be able to keep their British nationality there seems no reason to worry this would be the case.

The leader of RIFT’s Kalba Meadows, who analysed the research on the feelings of Brits towards French nationality said: “To put it simply, for a majority of people, citizenship is neither straightforward nor even, necessarily a solution.”

“To suggest that it is ignores the importance of both identity and conscience in the decision of whether to apply for citizenship.”

“While we continue to be told that taking French citizenship is an option if our rights are not upheld post-Brexit, it is not an option available to everyone under current rules,” she said.

via Brexit: Why French citizenship is not the solution for most Brits in France – The Local

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with ,

Why the 2020 census shouldn’t ask about your citizenship status – Salon.com

2018/02/27 Leave a comment

One of the more thoughtful pieces, with valid arguments, primarily the lack of question testing and the current political climate (one of the worst decisions of the Harper government was to replace the Census with the voluntary and less accurate National Household Survey in 2011, resulting is less robust data and comparability problems with previous data):

In December 2017, the Department of Justice formally proposed adding a citizenship question to the 2020 census. This question would ostensibly help to enforce the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

I am a social scientist who studies immigration. I have used census data on immigration and citizenship in my research for over two decades, and I have urged government statistical agencies before to collect more data about immigrants. But I don’t think it’s wise to collect citizenship status in the 2020 census. Doing so would not only raise the risk of collecting inaccurate data, but also reduce public confidence in the census itself.

Tracking citizenship

On the one hand, data on citizenship is valuable. In any modern democracy, statistical data is essential for informing policy debates and guiding the implementation of governmental programs. Without it, decisions would almost certainly be too easily shaped by anecdotal evidence and personal biases.

Citizenship data has been used to track political participation and inclusion of immigrant groups. Citizenship is strongly associated with access to public assistance, health care and jobs. Social scientists and policy analysts rely heavily on survey items on citizenship to understand immigrants’ well-being and their impact on host societies.

What’s more, the U.S. Census Bureau has successfully collected confidential information on citizenship status in the past. The citizenship question was first introduced in the 1870 census and was part of all censuses from 1890 through 1950. It was included in the “long” form of the census — administered to 1 in 6 households — as late as 2000. It’s also asked in the American Community Survey, a survey that Census Bureau conducts every year.

Immigrants tend to be willing survey respondents. In a 2010 study, Hispanic immigrants were more likely than U.S.-born Hispanics to agree that the census is good for the Hispanic community. They were also more likely to correctly understand that the census cannot be used to determine whether a person is in the country legally, and that the bureau must keep their responses confidential.

In another study I published in 2014 with two colleagues, James Bachmeier and Frank Bean, we found that nearly all immigrants answered questions about their immigration and documentation status. These response rates are on par with or better than typical survey questions on health or income. Moreover, immigrants’ responses to these questions appeared to be fairly accurate.

Harming the data

However, the political climate surrounding immigration has changed in the last year.

Not all immigrants have been cooperative respondents in the past. Those who are more likely to be undocumented have been undercounted in past censuses and were more likely to incorrectly report themselves as U.S. citizens.

The Trump administration’s anti-immigrant rhetoric and policy may have increased mistrust among all immigrants, not just those who are undocumented. During focus group interviews conducted by the Census Bureau roughly six months into Trump’s presidency, immigrants appeared anxious and reluctant to cooperate with Census Bureau interviewers. They mentioned fears of deportation, the elimination of DACA, a “Muslim ban” and ICE raids. One respondent walked out when the questionnaire turned to the topic of citizenship, leaving the interviewer alone in his apartment. Respondents even omitted or gave false names on household rosters to avoid “registering” with the Census Bureau. Interviewers remarked that it was much easier to collect data on immigration and citizenship just a few years ago than it is now.

It’s not yet clear whether the fears seen in the focus group interviews are widespread or how such fears would affect response rates if the citizenship question were added to the 2020 census. Additionally, researchers haven’t yet worked out a way to ask the citizenship question so it’s not perceived as threatening.

Unfortunately, there’s not enough time to find out. A finalized questionnaire must be submitted to Congress by the end of March.

What to do in 2020

I served on the Census Advisory Board from 2008 to 2011 and have personally witnessed the time and effort it takes for the Census Bureau to develop questions for the census. Officials must pay meticulous attention to the exact question wording, response categories, ordering and questionnaire layout.

I believe adding a citizenship question without adequate testing could severely reduce participation in the 2020 census among the country’s 44 million immigrants and the additional 32 million U.S.-born people who live with them.

The social and economic consequences of a low response rate for the 2020 census would be severe. Even small errors in coverage could shift the distribution of political power and federal funds, as well as reduce the effectiveness of public health systemsand other government functions.

Perhaps even worse, high coverage error in the 2020 census could undermine the public’s trust in the census as the nation’s source of information on the size, growth and geographic distribution of the U.S. population.

This occurred a century ago, as historian Margo Anderson described in her book, “The American Census.” The 1920 census revealed dramatic shifts in population from rural to urban areas, as large waves of Eastern and Southern European immigrants settled predominantly in American cities. Congress, fearing the political ramifications of these changes, rejected the results of the 1920 census and voted not to redistribute the seatsof the House according to the most recent census data. A similar rejection of the results of the 2020 census would likely result in a constitutional crisis today.https://counter.theconversation.com/content/91036/count.gif

Citizenship data would be valuable. But the risks of poor data quality — or the erosion of public trust in the census and other governmental institutions — far outweigh the potential benefits. Given that there are other current data available on citizenship, why take unnecessary risks when the stakes are so high?

via Why the 2020 census shouldn’t ask about your citizenship status – Salon.com

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with , , ,

Japanese abroad plan first lawsuit demanding dual citizenship：The Asahi Shimbun

2018/02/27 Leave a comment

Given the large number of multinational Japanese companies and thus Japanese expatriates, surprised that this has not become more of an issue earlier:

Japanese residing in Europe plan to file a lawsuit demanding the right to dual citizenship, arguing that the Japanese law that forces people to pick only one nationality are outdated, unconstitutional and invalid.

The lawsuit, to be filed against the government at the Tokyo District Court next month, will be the first litigation of its kind, according to the legal team of the eight would-be plaintiffs, who include Japanese living in Switzerland and France.

Six of them have been granted foreign citizenship and want to restore their Japanese nationality.

However, Section 1 in Article 11 of the Nationality Law stipulates that if “a Japanese citizen acquires the nationality of a foreign country at his/her choice, he/she loses Japanese nationality.”

The remaining two want to confirm that they can keep their Japanese citizenship even if they obtain a foreign nationality.

Teruo Naka, a lawyer for the group, says it is unreasonable for Japanese to lose their nationality at a time when they have growing opportunities to live and work regardless of national borders.

“The plaintiffs are hoping to keep their Japanese nationality out of an attachment to Japan and ties with their relatives living in Japan,” he said.

The plaintiffs are expected to argue in court that Section 1 in Article 11 was originally established to prevent the granting of multiple citizenship from the perspective of compulsory military service when the 1890 Constitution of the Empire of Japan was in effect. That clause was automatically passed into the current Nationality Law, which became effective in 1950, after the postwar Constitution took effect in 1947.

Sovereignty rested with the emperor under the previous Constitution, known as the Meiji Constitution. The current Constitution upholds sovereignty of the people.

They will also argue that a wide disparity has grown between the ideal of a single nationality, championed since the Meiji Era (1868-1912), and the current realities of globalization.

The group will also contend that the right to retain Japanese nationality is guaranteed under articles of the current Constitution.

Article 13 of the postwar Constitution, for example, guarantees the right to the pursuit of happiness, they said. Paragraph 2 of Article 22, they noted, states, “Freedom of all persons to move to a foreign country and to divest themselves of their nationality shall be inviolate.”

Unlike in the United States and some European countries, where residents can hold more than one citizenship, the Japanese law still pushes for a single nationality.

Individuals with dual or multiple citizenship, such as children born to Japanese and foreign nationals, are required to select one nationality by the age of 22 under the Nationality Law. Their numbers have increased in recent years with the rise in international marriages in Japan.

If Japanese citizens obtain a foreign nationality through, for example, an international marriage, they are legally obliged to renounce either the foreign or Japanese nationality within two years.

But there is no clause that penalizes those who do not come forward to announce their decision.

“Only those who honestly declare their selection in compliance with the law lose their Japanese nationality,” one of the plaintiffs said.

It is common for Japanese families overseas to acquire the citizenship of their host country for business or employment opportunities.

Hitoshi Nogawa, 74, who leads the plaintiffs and serves as head of the Japanese community in Basel, Switzerland, said he needed Swiss citizenship to enable his company to participate in defense-related public works projects in the country.

Another plaintiff said it is common practice for Japanese expatriates to use their Japanese passports only when they return and leave Japan. Inside their host country, they use the citizenship they have acquired there for business.

It is widely believed that many Japanese with dual citizenship have not declared their status. But not coming forward can lead to problems.

In 2016, questions arose about the nationality of Renho, an Upper House member who then headed the main opposition party. She was born in Japan to a Taiwanese father and Japanese mother, and doubts were raised that she had renounced her Taiwanese citizenship under the Nationality Law. She produced documents showing she did so in 2016.

According to the Foreign Ministry, about 460,000 Japanese with resident status were living overseas as of October 2016. It was not clear how many of them actually held more than one nationality.

Justice Ministry statistics showed that the number of Japanese who renounced their Japanese nationality after selecting a foreign citizenship or for other reasons ranged from 700 to 1,000 annually between 2012 and 2016.

via Japanese abroad plan first lawsuit demanding dual citizenship：The Asahi Shimbun

Filed under Citizenship, Dual Citizenship Tagged with

ICYMI: Australia – Dutton pushes on with citizenship changes

2018/02/23 Leave a comment

More Australia news:

Peter Dutton will try again to pass a controversial suite of citizenship changes shot down in the Senate last year.

The Home Affairs Minister wants to extend the waiting time for permanent residents to apply for citizenship, create tougher English language tests and give himself additional powers.

“I can assure you that the government remains committed to this reform,” Mr Dutton told the National Press Club in Canberra on Wednesday.

“We will work with the crossbench on the basis of a new package of measures flagged at the end of last year.”

Mr Dutton has signalled he is willing to cede some ground in negotiations with the crossbench.

However, he would prefer to secure bipartisan support rather than dealing with an unpredictable assortment of independents, urging the Labor Party to shift its position.

“If they don’t, I’m confident that (Citizenship Minister) Alan Tudge can deal with the independent senators and negotiate an outcome to the package.”

The government initially wanted to lift English requirements from “basic” to “competent”, which would require aspiring citizens to understand fairly complex language and have an effective grasp of English.

It has since agreed to accept a “modest” level, meaning would-be Australians must be able to handle basic communication and have a partial command of the language, while making many mistakes.

The government also wanted to impose its crackdown retrospectively, capturing everyone who applied for citizenship since its policy was announced on April 20, 2016.

It is now willing to hold fire on the changes until July 1 this year.

The Nick Xenophon Team, whose bloc of votes was critical last year, were not immediately won over by the watered-down changes, but their power has since been diminished by the fall-out from the dual citizenship saga.

via Dutton pushes on with citizenship changes

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with

Activists ‘outraged’ at decision to grant citizenship to investors | Jordan Times

2018/02/22 Leave a comment

Money trumps gender equality:

Activists on Tuesday lashed back at a Cabinet decision a day earlier to grant investors Jordanian citizenship or permanent residency, claiming that the decision was discriminatory and ignored their long-time demands to allow Jordanian women married to non-Jordanians to pass on their citizenship to their spouses and children.

The Cabinet on Monday set several conditions for individuals seeking to obtain Jordanian citizenship, including a zero-interest, five-year $1.5 million deposit at the Central Bank of Jordan (CBJ), or buying treasury bonds valued the same amount at an interest rate to be decided by CBJ and for a period of no less than 10 years.

“This is a provocative decision by the government that allows foreign individuals to obtain Jordanian nationality based on their financial means, while bluntly denying this right to Jordanian women,” said lawyer Noor Imam.

This decision “also comes in favour of rich women, who can now invest and obtain citizenship while the poor do not have this privilege”, Imam told The Jordan Times.

Activists and families of Jordanian women married to non-Jordanians have repeatedly demanded full citizenship rights for their children and spouses.

As it stands now, Jordanian men married to non-Jordanian women can pass on their citizenship to their wives and children, a right that is denied to Jordanian women married to foreigners.

Activist Laila Naffa agreed with Imam, saying that “this step should eliminate all the excuses the government has been giving to the women’s movement to deny the right of citizenship to families of Jordanian women who choose to marry a foreigner”.

Government officials on Tuesday defended the decision as conducive to investment.

Minister of State for Media Affairs and Communications and Government Spokesperson Mohammad Momani said the decision is meant to encourage investment in the Kingdom and boost the national economy.

“Children of Jordanian women married to non-Jordanians have been granted same treatment and privileges to Jordanians to ease up their lives and this decision to encourage investment will be to the interest of their families as part of the Jordanian society,” Momani told The Jordan Times.

The minister stressed that “this decision only aims to support the economy and eventually everyone will benefit from this step, including Jordanian women married to non-Jordanians and their children”.

“The government is always giving excuses in this case, such as wanting to protect the sovereignty of the country, but now they opened the door to anyone who has money to obtain citizenship except the families of Jordanian women who are married to non-Jordanians,” Naffa stated.

She stressed the priority should be given to “these women who are loyal to Jordan and have raised their children to also be loyal to the state”.

Naffa said that Jordan “missed an important opportunity with its decision to give investors citizenship when they could have taken advantage of the decision to announce the same for Jordanian women instead of discriminating against them”.

Tamkeen Fields for Aid’s (TFA) Director Linda Kalash, said: “The decision for investment is good, but the priority should go to the Jordanian women, and citizenship should not be granted based on financial purposes”.

“This is really outrageous and frustrating. Why can’t Jordanian women pass citizenship to their families like the investors?” Kalash told The Jordan Times.

In 2014, the government pledged to ensure the proper application of the “privileges” the government had granted to children of Jordanian women, provided that their mothers had been living in Jordan for a minimum of five years, for at least 180 days per year.

Some of the “privileges” included providing residency permits, the ability to apply for driving licences and real-estate ownership, as well as the availing of benefits in the educational, health, labour and investment sectors.

However, activists and campaign organisers continued to voice concerns that the government did not fully respect its promises, claiming they are still suffering on many fronts from discrimination and complicated governmental procedures when it comes to issuing the documents as promised.

Individuals and entities, who oppose granting citizenship to family members of these women, particularly those with Palestinian husbands, say such a measure will only lead Israel to implement its “ultimate plan of creating a substitute homeland for Palestinians in Jordan”.

Government figures show that there are 88,983 Jordanian women married to non-Jordanians, mostly Gazans, with 355,932 children within these families registered with the Civil Status and Passports Department.

Palestinians, except Gazans, who became refugees after the creation of Israel on Palestinian land, and those who were living in the West Bank when it was occupied by Israel in 1967, have been granted Jordanian citizenship.

via Activists ‘outraged’ at decision to grant citizenship to investors | Jordan Times

Filed under Citizenship, citizenship-by-investment Tagged with ,

OECD warns citizenship by investment programs used to circumvent taxes | Cayman Compass

2018/02/22 Leave a comment

About time:

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development has issued a consultation document (Consultation document – Preventing abuse of residence schemes to circumvent the CRS – OECD.org)that warned of the potential abuse of “residence by investment” or “citizenship by investment” schemes. These schemes allow foreign individuals to obtain citizenship or temporary or permanent residence rights in exchange for local investments or against a flat fee.

While investors may be interested in these for legitimate reasons, including greater mobility because of visa-free travel, better education and job opportunities for children, or the right to live in a country with political stability, there is the potential for misuse, the Paris-based organization said.

An OECD disclosure facility that enables the public to share arrangements designed to avoid tax reporting under the common reporting standards produced information indicating that RBI and CBI schemes are used to circumvent CRS reporting.

The now-issued consultation document assesses how the schemes are used to avoid reporting. It identifies the types of schemes that present a high risk of abuse and it reminds stakeholders of correctly applying CRS due diligence procedures to prevent the abuse.

While the schemes generally do not offer a solution to escape the legal scope of CRS reporting, because they do not provide tax residence or affect tax residence in another country, they can potentially be exploited to undermine the CRS due diligence procedures, the document noted.

This scenario could arise, for example, if an individual does not live in the relevant jurisdictions but claims to be a resident there for tax purposes and supports the claim by providing his financial institution with documents such as a certificate of residence, passport or utility bills.

The schemes that are most susceptible, according to the paper, are those in low or no tax jurisdictions and those that do not impose or only have limited requirements to be physically present in the jurisdiction.

The OECD is seeking public input to obtain further evidence on the misuse of CBI/RBI schemes and on effective ways for preventing such abuse.

The consultation closes on March 19. The responses will be taken into account in determining the next steps that will be taken, the OECD said.

Countries with well-established citizenship-by-investment programs include Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, St. Kitts and Nevis in the Caribbean, as well as Cyprus, Malta, the U.K., and the U.S. among others.

via OECD warns citizenship by investment programs used to circumvent taxes | Cayman Compass

Filed under Citizenship, citizenship-by-investment Tagged with

Government of Canada facilitates access to Canadian citizenship for minors – Canada.ca

2018/02/21 2 Comments

Good. The Government blinked on this one (see Children applying for Canadian citizenship face hefty fee | Toronto Star from August 2017):

The Government is committed to encouraging all immigrants, including minors under 18 years of age, to acquire citizenship. To help make that easier, the fee for minors applying under subsection 5(1) of the Citizenship Act has been reduced.

On June 19, 2017, the royal assent of Bill C-6 immediately brought into force a legislative amendment that removed the requirement to be 18 years old to apply for a grant of citizenship under subsection 5(1) of the Citizenship Act. This made it easier for minors to apply for citizenship on their own behalf. One of the strongest pillars for successful integration into Canadian life is acquiring Canadian citizenship.

The Honourable Ahmed Hussen, Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, announced changes to the fee schedule set out in the Citizenship Regulations to lower the processing fees for minors applying under subsection 5(1) of the Citizenship Act from $530 to $100, bringing them into line with the processing fees for minors applying under subsection 5(2) of the Act.

This ensures that there is no difference in the fee paid by citizenship grant applicants who are minors, regardless of whether they have a Canadian parent, are applying with a permanent resident parent or are applying on their own behalf.

Anyone who already paid the $530 fee for a minor applying under this subsection on or after June 19, 2017, will be reimbursed the difference of $430. Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada will contact these applicants directly to outline the process for receiving a refund.

Minors who do not have a Canadian parent, or a permanent resident parent applying for citizenship at the same time as them, can apply for citizenship under subsection 5(1) of the Citizenship Act. Therefore, the reduction in citizenship fees will help more minors, including immigrant children in the child welfare system or in the care of the state, acquire Canadian citizenship.

The department will be engaging provinces and territories, childcare agencies, immigration service provider organizations and other stakeholders to raise awareness of this change. The department will also provide information on how these institutions can assist minors in their care to acquire citizenship.

via Government of Canada facilitates access to Canadian citizenship for minors – Canada.ca

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →