SERVES THEM RIGHT: Australian MPs have talked about the dual citizenship problem for nearly 40 years – and done nothing about it

Good long commentary by Simon Thomsen:

You know that old axiom about parliament being full of reports called for so the government is seen to be doing something, before the findings die on the vine as politicians end up unwilling, unable, or both, to implement the reforms required?

Welcome to Section 44 of the Australian Constitution.

It’s hard to feel sorry for anyone in Canberra resigning or at risk of losing their well-paid job right now when you look at the Parliamentary library and realise various reports have flagged this problem numerous times, back to when Malcolm Fraser was prime minister in the 1980s.

Every time, they did nothing about it.

Perhaps they thought things wouldn’t unravel the way they have in the last few months because accountability has a different meaning in Canberra to the way it’s applied to everyone else in the country. Shakespeare’s line “hoist with his own petard” springs to mind.

Yet politicians like to pretend now that they’re Goldilocks, skipping through the forest, when this issue snuck up on them like the Big Bad Wolf. Oh woe is them.

They’ve known. For decades. The alarm sounded over and over and over again.

They just chose to ignore it and now, once again, are crying out that the Constitution needs to be changed because they failed to observe a very clear law in the first place.

Don’t forget that when this whole debacle began with the sudden resignation of two Greens senators in July, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull gleefully declared them guilty of they were guilty of “incredible sloppiness” and “extraordinary negligence” .

“When you nominate for parliament, there is actually a question – you have got to address that section 44 question, and you’ve got to tick the box and confirm you are not a citizen of another country,” Turnbull thundered at the time.

Having now lost two government senators and two MPs – half of the eight vanquished – Turnbull now sings a different song: “People are going to have to be warned in big red flashing letters ‘Dual citizenship is an issue’.”

While it’s not in red flashing letters, the top of the Australian Electoral Commission form they signed as candidates says: “Your attention is drawn in particular to section 44 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia”.

The nomination form all MPs sign when they nominate.

It’s an example of the popular quote, wrongly attributed to Einstein, that “insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

With the government losing two lower house MPs, including deputy PM Barnaby Joyce — and six senators having fallen afoul of the rule including Tasmanian Jacqui Lambie last week — the farce continued with suggested replacements being disqualified before they could even enter parliament, and doubts emerging over some others….

Repeated warnings

So back to those calls for an urgent need for change from people highly motivated by the risk of losing their jobs.

Perhaps they’re right, but the next question is why didn’t they, or their predecessors, do something about it at any point since 1981, when this issue has emerged at regular internals and been the subject of multiple investigations and reports every few years.

Politicians are often accused of inaction and ignoring the wishes of voters. If you’re someone who feels like that, then sit back and poor yourself a cup of political schadenfreude over what’s happened.

First up, former Greens senators Scott Ludlam and Larissa Waters, along with Lambie, are among the few honourable politicians in this tawdry saga.

They copped it on the chin and left.

“This is my error, something I should have checked when I first nominated for preselection in 2006,” Ludlam said back in July.

Fellow New Zealander Barnaby Joyce stayed on a month later, then taxpayers picked up the tab for his appearance before the High Court, where he essentially pleaded ignorance. It didn’t wash with the court.

Barnaby Joyce, found to be a New Zealander. Photo: Stefan Postles/ Getty Images.

The arguments put before the court showed a stunning ignorance of history, with counsel for one government MP warning of a “genealogical witch hunt” because of citizenship by descent laws.

The government should have seen this approaching train wreck for years. Not just over dual citizenship, but Section 44 in general.

John Cameron, the barrister who brought Ludlam undone, has been campaigning on this issue for years. In 2010, he was trying to check the status of UK-born Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott with the British Home Office, then tried to take them to the High Court in 2013 to produce their documents, only to have the case thrown out as “vexatious and an abuse of process”.

There are other MPs and senators in the current parliament who’ve been under Section 44 scrutiny and featured in reports into change. But they’ve done nothing about it.

Another recent warnings came in March 2004, via a Parliamentary Library “E-Brief” after Northern Territory senator Nigel Scullion – the Turnbull government’s current Minister for Indigenous Affairs – faced a spot of bother over a potential breach of section 44(v.) of the Constitution. That section relates any “direct or indirect pecuniary interest in any agreement with the Public Service of the Commonwealth”. It’s the part that ultimately cost Family First’s Bob Day, from South Australia, his senate job in a High Court ruling earlier this year. (Although Day resigned before that anyway, after his building business collapsed.)

The Parliamentary Library wrote the 2004 paper to outline “how section 44 of the Constitution works and why cases like that of Senator Scullion seem to arise so regularly“.

Even the time it took for parliament to deal with the issue back then is telling. It makes the unraveling farce of the last five months – and the plan that all MPs and Senators disclose their status by December 1 – look like light speed action by comparison.

Scullion originally wrote to the Senate President in May 2002 about his concerns.

“The Senate however has proven reluctant to deal with the case. It took 16 months for the Senate even to decide to seek external legal advice,” then 2004 E-Brief recounts.

“It was another five months before the legal advice was tabled in the Senate, which concluded that Senator Scullion had avoided breaching section 44. As Senator Ray remarked on the day the advice was tabled, this may have been a matter of some good luck on Senator Scullion’s part.”

Trawling through the Parliamentary library, the current carnage for the government and MPs of all persuasions begins to look like the result of willful negligence.

From 25 years ago – 25 years ago! – here’s the 1992 Parliamentary Library Background Paper no. 29: Dual citizenship, foreign allegiance and s. 44(i) of the Australian Constitution.

But any MP looking for some weekend reading should drag out No. 36 in the Papers on Parliament, by John Kalokerinos.

His June 2001 work is titled “Who May Sit? An Examination of the Parliamentary Disqualification Provisions of the Commonwealth Constitution“.

If you’re John Alexander or Barnaby Joyce, busy campaigning in a by-election to get your old job back because you’d forgotten/didn’t bother checking regarding your overseas born dad, here’s the short version of what Kalokerinos had to say:

I conclude that the existing disqualifications are deficient. Indeed, s 44 was labelled ‘vestigial’ by Barwick CJ.

The provisions are anachronistic and inequitable, and should be deleted, or replaced with legislative provisions which are less rigid, and capable of being updated by the Parliament as and when appropriate.

The Barwick he refers to is the legendary High Court Chief Justice, Sir Garfield Barwick, in a 1975 case involving a Country Party (now Nationals) senator James Webster, hauled before the Court over s.44(v) – the same section that snared Day in this parliament. Incidentally, Malcolm Turnbull’s father-in-law, Tom Hughes, represented the government.

Kalokerinos notes that Barwick “exonerated Senator Webster through an adroit use of technical principles of contract, and a narrow interpretation of the Constitution. Accordingly, the decision has been subjected to significant and valid criticism.”

But his point is unwavering, the rules are anachronistic, unjust and need to be changed.

He sounds a clear warning, saying “because of the difficulty of constitutional change in Australia, the disqualifications should not be contained in the Constitution, which entrenches ‘archaic language devised in circumstances that prevailed a century ago’.”

Kalokerinos cites the 1992 case Sykes v Cleary, which came to the fore again recently, as well. That involved three candidates in one seat ruled ineligible saying it raised the question “whether this rate of disqualification is extraordinary or simply demonstrative of the pressing need for reform of s 44”.

There are other cases, including in 1999, and various earlier parliamentary reports, including 1997’s House of Representatives review into “Aspects of Section 44 of the Australian Constitution”, which concluded “Legislative protections are more ‘flexible and equitable’, and can be amended to deal with new dangers as they emerge”.

Then there’s the 1981 Senate Committee report, in which Kalokerinos highlights “in arguing the impropriety of constitutional disqualifications [Professor Geoffrey Sawer] noted that disqualifications are by their nature technical, and must be flexible to deal with social and economic change and to remain relevant.”

So 16 years ago, Kalokerinos was warning politicians to act before it was too late, saying (emphasis added):

Despite the unsuccessful record of constitutional reform in Australia, such a proposal would have real prospects of success when its bipartisan nature is recognised, and particularly if put as part of a broader program to update the Constitution.

Significant constitutional reform is needed to produce a disqualification provision more appropriate to parliamentary democracy in Australia in the 21st century.

Reading through all these reports, who can’t help wondering how many dead canaries politicians need in the coalmine before they start to believe there might be a problem.

Another warning was sounded in 1999, for example, when One Nation attempted to exploit Section 44 and senator Len Harris challenged the right of 30 MPs and senators to sit in Parliament because they were born overseas. He ended up in the Senate in September of that year because his colleague Heather Hill, elected the previous year, was tossed out because the naturalised Australian had failed to renounce her British citizenship.

History repeats.

Kalokerinos concludes his analysis saying “Section 44 goes to the heart of Australian representative democracy” and limits the choices of Australian voters to the extent that it conflicts with the notion of representative democracy.

Yes this issue will drag on for at least a few more weeks. Only today the government announced it was extending the deadline, from December 1 to 4, for when MPs have to disclose their citizenship status. It has postponed sittings in the House of Representatives next week over the issue, as well as same-sex marriage, which gives the impression that after a five-week break, there’s no more important legislation for the nation to consider than their own eligibility for parliament.

Turnbull’s handling of this matter has been embarrassing, from his initial gloating over the misfortune of the Greens to wrongly declaring Joyce would be cleared by the High Court. His resistance to an audit, like it’s too much trouble to check politicians actually complied with the legal documents they signed – at risk of criminal penalties, including jail time – adds to the sense that politicians were doing their best to avoid scrutiny.

How can the government demand compliance from banks, unions, multinational companies, taxpayers and welfare recipients, when it’s so cavalier about MPs complying with the Constitution?

As it clings to power, the government now looks like it didn’t just sit on its hands, but may have tried to keep a lid on the whole thing, especially when former senate president Stephen Parry’s reputation was sullied because he was told to keep quiet when he flagged with a senior colleague that he might be a dual citizen.

Changing the Constitution requires a referendum, but as we saw last week, Australian voters know what’s right if Parliament has the courage to ask them.

Once again it’s up to politicians to decide if they’re brave enough to allow us to make that choice.

via SERVES THEM RIGHT: Australian MPs have talked about the dual citizenship problem for nearly 40 years – and done nothing about it | Business Insider

Government missed the most important reform in amending citizenship legislation [fees]

Rob Vineberg and I on citizenship fees:

Recent amendments to the Citizenship Act rolled back many of the restrictive provisions introduced by the previous government. These include reducing the residence period to apply for citizenship from four out of the previous six years to three out of five years; allowing half of the time spent in Canada before becoming a permanent resident to count towards the residence period for citizenship; and, removing the provision that allowed dual citizens convicted of treason, spying or terrorism to be stripped of their Canadian citizenship and deported. Now, as before, they will face Canadian justice. In addition, the new legislation replaces the minister or his delegate—in practice, a mid-level official—as the decision-maker in citizenship revocation cases based on misrepresentation or fraud at the time of application. Once again, these cases will be determined by the Federal Court.

The government has, however, overlooked the biggest barrier to citizenship erected by the previous government: cost. Prior to 2014, an applicant for Canadian citizenship paid a $100 fee and adults paid an additional “right of citizenship” fee of $100. Thus, a family of four had to pay $600 for their citizenship applications. However, in February 2014, the previous government increased that fee to $300 and then, in 2015, increased it again to $530 plus the $100 right of citizenship fee for adults. Therefore, since 2015, the cost for a family of four applying for citizenship has soared to $1,460. The government of the time argued that this reflected the costs of processing applications.

In addition, in the Canada Gazette, the government argued, disingenuously or stupidly (take your choice), that “the fee increase will not impact the naturalization rate as the value placed on obtaining citizenship is very high and the benefits associated with obtaining citizenship far outweigh the fee increases. Thus, the number of applications expected per year is not anticipated to fall following an increase in the fees.”

Now anyone who has taken economics 101 knows that price affects demand. So what has happened in reality? In 2015, before the new fees took effect, there were 130,227 applications and 252,187 people received citizenship. However, in 2016, only 92,197 applications were received and 147,791 people received citizenship—a drop of 41 per cent. And in the first six months of 2017, the precipitous drop continued. Only 51,412 were granted citizenship as opposed to 98,418 in the first six months of 2016—a further drop of 48 per cent. So who was right, the previous government or graduates of economics 101? Clearly the outrageous new fees are a huge impediment for newcomers, often struggling to make ends meet.

Some of the reduction in applications is due to other factors. Lengthening residency requirements to four out of six years had a one-time impact as those meeting the previous three year minimum had to delay their applications. Similarly, the extension of language and knowledge testing to applicants aged 55 to 64 (about seven per cent of all applications) meant fewer applications from that age group. However, the greater part of the drop in applications is due to the fees increase.

Now, after two years of the higher fees, the number of applications has recovered slightly but remains far short of the historic average of some 200,000 annually. A further worrying fact is that applications from poorer newcomers, in particular refugees, have declined even more than for other immigrants.

Now you may ask, what difference does this make? It makes a huge difference. The entire Canadian immigration policy is based on the premise that it is a continuum, starting with a person applying overseas and ending with him or her becoming a Canadian citizen. It is critical that newcomers participate fully in Canadian civil society and feel part of civil society. And they cannot do so if they do not become Canadian citizens.

The benefit of newcomers becoming citizens as soon as possible vastly outweighs the government’s need to recover costs of processing. It seems paradoxical at best that’ at the same time the government promotes diversity and inclusion, and increases immigration levels, it retains a major barrier to immigrants wishing to participate fully in Canadian society.

The cost for adults applying for citizenship must be reduced to at most $300, including the $100 right of citizenship fee, and quickly.

via Government missed the most important reform in amending citizenship legislation – The Hill Times – The Hill Times

St Kitts-Nevis citizenship by investment scheme named ‘world’s most innovative’ ~ WIC News

More a negative than a positive, given the program’s clientele and the organization that named it “most innovative:”

The citizenship by investment programme in St Kitts and Nevis has been named the most innovative investment immigration programme in the world at an awards ceremony in Russia.

The Russian Global Citizen Awards, which took place today in Moscow, are designed to celebrate individuals, companies and governments “who have made significant contributions to the freedom of movement, investment and residence.”

The annual ceremony was attended by international experts in the fields of private banking, family office, residency and economic citizenship.

“This award is the culmination of many years refining and improving our processes, and adapting to the growing needs of the global citizen,” said Prime Minister Timothy Harris.

“Receiving an award which acknowledges the forward-thinking approach and the agility of our programme is reinforcement that we are leaders, not just in the world of economic citizenship, but in what we have to offer to the global citizen.”

The award comes in the same year that the federation was ranked high in the special report by Professional Wealth Management, a publication from the Financial Times newspaper.

The long-running programme, the world’s first when it launched in 1984, was marked as the strongest in terms of due diligence vetting for each applicant. The dual-island state’s citizenship by investment unit was the first to introduce an electronic system to manage applications.

Yesterday in parliament, Harris said that the St Kitts and Nevis CBI programme was about “more than passports”.

Instead the government hopes to “build the country and find avenues in a challenging world, to have appropriate, legitimate foreign investment coming into the country to assist us with our nation-building tasks.”

The prime minister wasn’t in Russia to collect the award, so accepting in his place was a representative from international citizenship consultancy firm CS Global Partners.

A spokesman said they work closely with the Basseterre government on the CBI programme.

According to the award criteria, award winners must have “assisted international clients in becoming true citizens of the world”, either those one specific achievement or because of a long series of contributions.

Nominees are selected by an international jury made up of both industry professionals and the HNWI – high-net-worth individual – community.

The awards ceremony took place alongside the the seventh Moscow Family Office Forum.

This annual gathering covered topics ranging from real estate investment to risk management, taxation to relocation, and family office trends.

via St Kitts-Nevis citizenship by investment scheme named ‘world’s most innovative’ ~ WIC News

In the era of extreme immigration vetting, Canada remains a noble outlier: John Ivison

Ivison’s take on my MPI article Building a Mosaic: The Evolution of Canada’s Approach to Immigrant Integration):

While Donald Trump used Tuesday’s deadly attack in New York to promote immigration restrictions, a remarkable consensus continues to hold in Canada, evident in the response to the government’s announcement that nearly 1 million newcomers will be welcomed over the next three years.

Immigration minister Ahmed Hussen said late Wednesday 310,000 new entrants will arrive next year, 330,000 in 2019 and 340,000 in 2020.

In response, Conservative immigration critic Michelle Rempel complained about the Liberals over-promising and under-delivering on the immigration file, pointing to a backlog at the Immigration and Refugee Board, a lack of mental health services for Yazidi women, wait times for permanent residency for caregivers, and an uneven spread of immigrants across the country. But crucially, those complaints were about management of the system by the Liberals, not the significant uptick in numbers.

In a world where the U.S. president is pushing to step up “extreme vetting,” where even countries like Germany and Denmark with a reputation for being havens are turning against immigrants, Canada is a notable, noble outlier.

As Andrew Griffith, a former senior bureaucrat at the department of Citizenship and Immigration, notes in a new paper for the Washington-based Migration Policy Institute, Canada’s successful immigration policy has its roots in the country’s history and geography.

“The ongoing creative tension between groups (English, French and Indigenous peoples) produced a culture of accommodation central to Canada’s ability to absorb and integrate newcomers. Further, the widely held perception among Canadians that immigrants are an economic boon and cultural asset to the country has made public opinion on the subject generally resilient, even as sharp backlashes have unfolded in the United States and Europe,” he wrote.

The polling bears that out. In fact, fewer people are concerned about immigrants not adopting “Canadian values” than at any time in the past 20 years, according to a major study carried out last year by the Environics Institute.

The study said 58 per cent of Canadians disagree with the statement that immigration levels are too high, compared with 37 per cent who agree. Views on the issue in Quebec reflected the national average.

It said 80 per cent believe the economic impact of immigration is positive, compared to just 16 per cent who disagree.

And it found 65 per cent think immigration controls are effective in keeping out criminals, up from just 39 per cent in 2008.

Since the major liberalization of immigration in the 1960s, when Canada abandoned race-based selection criteria and paved the way for the country’s current diversity, there has been a consistency about the broad parameters of immigration policy, regardless of which party has been in power.

Since 1995, immigrants admitted under economic preferences have consistently accounted for half or more of newly arrived immigrants.

The OECD’s migration outlook survey suggests the Canadian system is successful at attracting some of the world’s best and brightest. In 2014, 260,400 permanent residents were admitted, and more than half of the 25-to-64 year olds in that group had completed post-secondary degrees. The employment rate for foreign-born men was higher than for native-born men.

None of that is to suggest that the system is not used as a source of electoral fodder — particularly by the Liberal Party.

While the Conservatives reduced family-class immigration and increased economic immigration when they were in power, new programs introduced by the Liberals threaten to reverse some of that progress.

In the last election, the Liberals campaigned on prioritizing family reunification, granting points under the Express Entry system to applicants with siblings in Canada and doubling the number of applications allowed for parents and grandparents.

There was plenty more political pandering — watering down language requirements, lifting Mexican visa requirements and reducing the residency requirement for citizenship from four years to three.

The Trudeau Liberals’ emphasis on rights over the responsibilities promoted by the Harper government — and the prioritization of diversity over Harper’s insistence on shared Canadian values and history — paid electoral dividends, shifting the allegiance of a number of visible minority communities toward the Liberals.

Yet the changes were at the margins.

Both governments adhered to the distinctly Canadian model of integration, based on broad agreement about the way immigrants are selected, settled and melded into society.

The demographics defy partisanship and both Conservatives and Liberals have tried to offset the effect of an ageing population, where the working age to retired ratio is set to fall from 6.6:1 in 1971 to 2:1 by 2036.

Beyond the economics, there is a common approach to integration.

Griffiths notes that as far back as 1959 in Statistics Canada’s Canada Year Book, integration was defined as being clearly distinct from assimilation — it provided for the retention of cultural identity.

The niqab ban in Quebec suggests the debate on accommodation is not resolved.

But it is easy to lose sight of the fact that Canadians are broadly at ease with mass immigration to this country, even as it has resulted in a country with one of the largest foreign-born populations in the world.

Source: John Ivison: In the era of extreme immigration vetting, Canada remains a noble outlier | National Post

Building a Mosaic: The Evolution of Canada’s Approach to Immigrant Integration | migrationpolicy.org

My overview piece for the Washington-based Migration Policy Institute on how the Canadian approach to immigration, settlement, citizenship and multiculturalism works to further integration.

I am working with the Canadian Immigration Historical Society on a more comprehensive version, scheduled for next year.

Source: Building a Mosaic: The Evolution of Canada’s Approach to Immigrant Integration | migrationpolicy.org

Erreur dans le recensement linguistique: Statistique Canada s’explique

Not an easy time before parliamentarians:

Statistique Canada avait «détecté certains changements» dans les données sur la langue à l’étape de la validation, mais «n’a pas, à ce moment-là, capté» qu’il aurait fallu procéder à une révision avant de diffuser les données linguistiques qui ont provoqué un tollé au Québec.

«Je sais ce qui s’est produit. Mais comment on a manqué cette erreur-là, c’est cette partie que je ne sais pas encore», a lâché devant les députés du comité permanent sur les langues officielles Marc Hamel, directeur général du programme du recensement.

L’agence fédérale avait déjà fait son mea culpa en août dernier, expliquant que l’erreur avait été causée par le logiciel de compilation de données. Celui-ci a inversé les réponses dans des formulaires en français d’environ 61 000 personnes, dont environ 57 000 au Québec.

La bourde avait eu pour conséquence de surestimer la croissance de l’anglais dans la province et dans certaines de ses régions, tant pour la langue maternelle que pour la langue parlée à la maison, ce qui avait inquiété politiciens et défenseurs de la langue française.

«Ce n’est pas le système qui n’a pas détecté (l’erreur). Ce sont les gens qui ont testé le système qui n’ont pas détecté que le système ne lisait pas le questionnaire de façon conforme», a spécifié Marc Hamel aux élus.

Le député conservateur Alupa Clarke lui a demandé si des têtes allaient rouler chez Statistique Canada, déplorant que «de plus en plus, aujourd’hui, on vit dans une société où on ne met jamais au banc des accusés les responsables».

«Dans un cas comme celui-là, on ne parle pas des individus, on parle des processus. Si à chaque fois que quelqu’un faisait une erreur, il était congédié, on en congédierait peut-être plusieurs. Les erreurs sont rares», lui a répondu M. Hamel.

«On a fait les correctifs appropriés pour éviter que ce genre de situation comme ça se reproduise encore. Est-ce que je peux vous dire aujourd’hui que dans les 100 prochaines années, ça n’arrivera pas encore? Absolument pas. L’erreur est humaine», a-t-il ajouté.

Au haut fonctionnaire, qui s’est défendu de «prêcher par nonchalance», Alupe Clarke a suggéré d’envoyer une «lettre diplomate» aux 5000 employés de l’agence pour leur dire de faire gaffe à l’avenir, établissant un parallèle avec son expérience dans les Forces armées.

«Moi, j’ai fait l’armée, puis nous, ça ne niaise pas, là. Il y a une discipline (…) puis quand on fait la guerre, ça marche», a-t-il lâché.

Un peu plus tôt, son collègue néo-démocrate François Choquette s’était étonné que l’agence ait diffusé les données linguistiques alors que certaines d’entre elles, en particulier dans certaines villes à forte majorité francophone, étaient clairement suspectes.

«Attendez que je comprenne comme il faut: 164 pour cent d’augmentation de la population anglophone à Rimouski, 115 à Saguenay, 110 à Drummondville. Vous avez eu ces chiffres-là, qui n’étaient pas normaux, et vous avez quand même décidé de les sortir?», a-t-il questionné.

Le directeur adjoint de la division de la statistique sociale, Jean-Pierre Corbeil, a répondu que ce n’était «pas aussi simple» et qu’il «fallait être prudent quand on faisait des comparaisons historiques», surtout compte tenu des changements survenus sous les conservateurs en 2011.

Ces données contenues dans la livraison initiale de données du 2 août dernier étaient passées sous le radar jusqu’à ce que le président de l’Association d’études canadiennes, Jack Jedwab, lève un drapeau rouge après avoir passé les chiffres au peigne fin.

Les données revues et corrigées publiées quelques jours après ont confirmé que le français avait effectivement perdu du terrain au Québec, mais moins qu’annoncé initialement, et que l’anglais n’avait pas progressé, mais plutôt reculé, dans la province.

En présentant les nouveaux chiffres, l’agence fédérale avait fait acte de contrition et reconnu que cette erreur était d’autant plus regrettable qu’elle concernait un enjeu fort délicat au Québec.

«Nous sommes très conscients de l’aspect très sensible de cette question, de ces enjeux, et Statistique Canada va corriger le tir, simplement», affirmait Jean-Pierre Corbeil, directeur adjoint de la division de la statistique sociale et autochtone, qui était aussi au comité, mardi.

Source: Erreur dans le recensement linguistique: Statistique Canada s’explique | Mélanie Marquis | National

New Zealand may tighten law that allows mega wealthy to buy citizenship | The Guardian

Need review following the Thiel case:

New Zealand’s new Labour government will reconsider legislation that allows wealthy foreigners to effectively buy citizenship, the housing minister has said.

In an interview with the Guardian about the housing shortage in New Zealand, Phil Twyford said the law that allowed Trump donor and Paypal co-founder Peter Thiel to become a citizen and buy a bolt hole in the South Island would come under scrutiny.

Since coming into power last week, Labour has said it will ban foreigners from buying existing homes, along with a slew of policies aimed at addressing the housing crisis, which has seen homelessness grow to more than 40,000 people.

However, the ban will not apply to foreigners who gain citizenship in New Zealand – a loophole that billionaire Thiel used, after spending a total of 12 days in the country.

Thiel’s fast-tracked citizenship allowed him to buy multiple properties in New Zealand, even though he told the government he had no intention of living in the country, but would be an “ambassador” for New Zealand overseas instead, and provide contacts for New Zealand entrepreneurs to Silicon Valley.

“That was a discretionary decision that was made at the time [Thiel’s citizenship], and we were very critical. Our policy, banning people would apply to everybody, regardless of how much money they have or what country they come from,” Twyford said.

“We haven’t announced policy on that [tightening the investment immigration criteria] but I think it is probably something that we are likely to look at.”

Twyford said New Zealand’s ban on foreign buyers was modelled on similar legislation in Australia, and was designed to ensure New Zealanders can once again achieve the Kiwi dream of owning their own home.

“We’ve seen house prices in our biggest city Auckland double in the last nine years, we’ve got the lowest rate of home-ownership since 1951, and we have what the Salvation Army describes as the worst homelessness in living memory,” said Twyford, who has only officially been in office one day.

“Housing has come to be seen as an investment asset primarily, rather than a place for people to live and bring up a family. Off-shore money coming into the market has been a significant contributor to that.”

The ban – to be introduced within 100 days – will apply to every nationality and every income bracket worldwide, including Australians, and will apply equally to business, trusts, companies and individuals.

For foreigners to be able to purchase property they’ll need to become a permanent resident or citizen of New Zealand – which will become increasingly difficult with Labour pledging to slash high-rates of immigration – a record 70,000 last year.

The ban on buying foreign homes will only apply to existing dwellings, with Twyford saying New Zealand would continue to “welcome” overseas buyers who wanted to build new homes, or invest in apartment blocks.

According to Twyford, Auckland had built up a shortage of 40,000 homes, with the deficit increasing by 7,000 every year at the current build rate. Among Labour’s new policies is a plan to build 100,000 affordable homes in New Zealand within the next decade, stop the sell-off of state housing and build new state housing.

“Uncontrolled foreign investement for the purposes of speculation is actually destructive and it is a feature of a housing market that has utterly failed…We expect it [the ban] will be permanent, ” said Twyford, who added the government would increase the length of tenancies for renters and introduce legislation ensuring rental properties were insulated, warm and dry within 100 days.

“We don’t see any benefit to people who are not citizens or permanent residents of this country being able to speculate in housing and make a profit at the expense of generation rent.”

Source: New Zealand may tighten law that allows mega wealthy to buy citizenship | World news | The Guardian

Antigua & Barbuda To Slash Citizenship Investment Threshold – Investment Immigration

Canadian policies having an impact by reducing the major incentive of visa free travel:

Antigua & Barbuda has seen a dramatic 95 per cent decline in the most popular stream of its citizenship-by-investment program after Canada withdrew visa-free access to passport holders in June 2017.

The Caribbean island will cut the investment threshold for its National Development Fund (NDF) in half – from $200,000 to $100,000 – to try and stimulate interest from high net worth candidates.

A representative of the country’s Citizenship by Investment Unit (CIU) told the country’s Daily Observer newspaper that access to Canada was previously ‘the country’s most compelling advantage’. Without that access, the Antigua citizenship program is left to compete entirely based on investment threshold.

Opposition lawmakers say slashing the threshold will result in the destruction of the program.


Antigua & Barbuda Investor Citizenship: Investment Requirements

National Development Fund One-time investment of US $200,000 (soon to drop to $100,000)
Real Estate US $400,000 in real estate property in Antigua & Barbuda. In case of joint investment, each applicant must contribute a minimum amount of $400,000. The real estate must be held for a period of at least five years.
Business $1,500,000 in an approved business. In case of a joint investment application, the total investment must be for a sum of not less than $5 million with each applicant contributing at least $400,000.

Antigua & Barbuda initially reacted to Canada’s decision by cutting the fee for its program to $25,000 from $50,000 for a family of four.

However, this clearly did not have the required effect.

Ottawa announced on Monday, June 26, 2017 that all citizens of the Caribbean nation would require a visa as of 5.30am on Tuesday, June 27, 2017.

“After carefully monitoring the integrity of Antigua & Barbuda’s travel documents, the government of Canada has determined that Antigua & Barbuda no longer meets Canada’s criteria for a visa exemption,” a Canadian government statement said.

The statement added that Canada needed to protect “the integrity of our immigration system and ensuring the safety of Canadians”.

The move was likely linked to concerns over the integrity of the Antigua and Barbuda Investor Citizenship Program.

The program is one of the cheapest in the region, and effectively meant people could buy their way to visa-free travel into Canada.

Complete Overhaul

Politicians in Antigua & Barbuda called for a complete overhaul of the program following Canada’s move to impose a visa restriction.

The leader of the Caribbean country’s Democratic National Alliance (DNA) says Canada’s decision was a direct result of outside suspicions on how the CIP is operated.

Historically the programs have been viewed as a way for people to hide money, but many of the countries in the region have taken steps to clean up their acts.

DNA leader Joanne Massiah says Antigua & Barbuda is sacrificing the reputation of the country to try and get as much investment as it can from the CIP.

St Kitts Visa Restriction

Canada made a similar move to impose a visa restriction on travellers from St. Kitts & Nevis in 2014.

According to sources, authorities had evidence of people linked to terrorist organizations and criminal gangs buying St. Kitts passports to enter Canada without immigration screening.

Since then, St. Kitts has overhauled its investor residence program, although Canada is yet to lift the visa requirement.

Source: Antigua & Barbuda To Slash Citizenship Investment Threshold – Investment Immigration

Australia: Government hit with ‘surge’ of citizenship applications after Dutton’s bill fails in Senate | SBS News

Not surprising. Embarrassing climb down by the government of a seriously flawed bill:

The Department of Immigration has received a rush of applications for Australian citizenship this week, after the government failed to pass sweeping reforms that included a tougher English language test.

Department officials said citizenship applications had fallen to a low “plateau” since immigration minister Peter Dutton announced the crackdown in April.

But last week the government missed a deadline to pass the bill through the Senate, sparking a new rush on applications.

The government’s sweeping reforms to citizenship will be redrafted with an easier English language test and eventually reintroduced to the Senate, immigration minister Peter Dutton has confirmed.

“Since the announcement last week there’s been another surge,” Immigration Department official Christine Dacey told Senate Estimates on Monday evening.

The bill would have increased waiting times for permanent residents from one to four years, as well as introducing a new English language exam and a test on “Australian values”.

Ms Dacey said there was another spike when the changes were first announced in April.

“There was a very large spike on or about the 20th of April, and then there was kind of a plateau, which was lower than compared to 12 months ago,” she said.

Last week, Mr Dutton confirmed the government would redraft its citizenship reforms and try again to pass them through the Senate.

The government’s controversial citizenship changes have suffered a major blow in the Senate despite a last-ditch bid by Peter Dutton.

He said the government was willing to accept migrants who pass an English entrance exam at the Band 5 on the international testing standard, rather than Band 6 as previously proposed.

The tougher Band 6 test was a major sticking point in the Senate, including for the crucial Nick Xenophon Team on the crossbench. Band 5 is described as “modest” English user, rather than a “competent” one.

But there is no indication yet that any of the senators who voted against the bill have changed their minds.

More than 118,000 people are waiting for their Australian citizenship applications to be processed by immigration department officials.

Mr Dutton confirmed those waiting for a response to their applications would now be processed under the existing rules.

Source: Government hit with ‘surge’ of citizenship applications after Dutton’s bill fails in Senate | SBS News

Commentary: The View from Europe: Citizenship programmes: a race to the bottom? – Caribbean News Now

David Jessop on how Caribbean countries are in what appears to be a race to the bottom in citizenship-by-investment programs:

In most Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) nations, citizenship is available at a cost. It can be purchased by almost anyone who can afford it. There is no qualifying period and no residential requirement. All that is needed is a one-off payment into either an agreed form of investment or to a government development fund, plus background checks on the individual concerned.

Depending on the location and scheme chosen, the basic cost is now between US$100,000 and US$400,000 plus fees. Not only does this confer a passport, but it also offers free movement within the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), and visa free entry to many other countries. At further cost, citizenship can be extended to families and relatives.

The creation of such citizenship by investment (CBI) programmes has been mainly driven by the Caribbean governments’ concerned need to find new ways to raise revenue because of their otherwise limited capacity to compete globally.

St Kitts, Grenada, Dominica, Antigua, and St Lucia have such arrangements, but St Vincent has not. Belize suspended its controversial programme in 2002.

For the most part, such schemes showed early promise.

Slides shown in June this year, by Trevor Alleyne, the IMF Division Chief for the Caribbean, at a conference on global mobility and tax strategies, suggest that taken together, the contribution made to GDP by Caribbean CBI programmes peaked in 2014. Then, for example, St Kitts earned 14% of its GDP from citizenship, enabling it to substantially offset what otherwise would have been negative growth. However, since then its programme earnings has gone into a slow decline.

In a probable reflection of this and the need to stimulate renewed interest, its government recently announced a new route to citizenship at a basic rate of US$150,000, ‘a proportion of which’, it said, would be paid into a hurricane relief fund. The decision appears to make redundant a part of its existing programme, which offers citizenship for a minimum contribution of US$250,000 to the country’s National Development Fund

To be fair, it may also reflect a comment made recently by the governor of the Eastern Caribbean Central Bank (ECCB), Dr Timothy Antoine. Launching the ECCB’s strategic plan earlier this month, he urged OECS governments to consistently set aside a portion of citizenship revenues to use as leverage to attract climate finance under the Paris Climate Accord.

In contrast, in Dominica, and to a much lesser extent in Grenada, the contribution made by citizenship programmes to GDP has been increasing. In Dominica’s case, its National Development Programme earnings before Hurricane Maria struck, had reportedly reached US$50 million per month: sums that were being used to pay down debt, support public works, as well as to provide budgetary support and employment.

In an indirect confirmation of the value of Dominica’s low basic fee of US$100,000, and the fierce competition now existing between OECS nations for citizenship applications, Antigua this month reduced its basic fee for citizenship to the same US$100,000 level.

The least successful CBI programme has been St Lucia’s.

Earlier this year, its government halved the previous cost of citizenship for individuals, also to US$100,000, and adjusted downwards the fee for all other categories, making the country’s programme for a short time the cheapest in the region. It also lifted a self-imposed limit on the number of applications that could be processed annually, and revoked previous requirements relating to an applicant’s net worth on the basis that other countries were offering discounts or incentives.

What is emerging from this apparent race to the bottom are several issues.

Firstly, well thought through, well administered programmes linked to national development programmes, where judiciously applied and with clear outcomes, appear to offer the best avenues for government and countries to reap the greatest rewards.

Second, global and inter-regional competition suggests the emergence of a zero-sum game in which nations may seek to offset a decline in income by further reducing pricing. If this happens, it follows that a higher number of successful applicants will be required if income from citizenship is to sustain or enhance GDP growth.

Thirdly, if governments are unable to significantly grow applicant numbers through price reductions, or through encouraging greater citizenship related investment in real estate or bonds, they may have to turn again to tourism to increase revenue, and to new tax breaks to spur investment.

In short, Caribbean CBI programmes may not have as a bright a revenue earning future as they have had in the past.

While many high net worth people continue to seek second or third citizenships, it appears likely that the numbers of applicants per Caribbean country may decrease as global competition grows, at worst accelerating the sector’s decline.

In theory, OECS nations with CBI programmes could consider some sort of approach involving harmonisation. However, in the real world of multiple unresolved sub-regional ideological, economic and personality differences, it is hard to imagine achieving a consensus that lasts.

Unfortunately, OECS governments have shown little willingness to address questions about the sustainability of their citizenship programmes, or to indicate whether they have fresh ideas about the ways in which they might redesign existing schemes to ensure continuing income without lowering fees any further.

All of which is to say nothing about the sometimes-questionable comments and defensive public relations exercises undertaken by some agents selling CBI programmes, about the questions that remain about the due diligence processes some governments pursue, or the serious international concern that has arisen about the issuance of diplomatic passports.

Almost every nation in the world provides a path to citizenship. Despite this, many citizens and some governments in principle object to the idea that nationality is something that can be sold. In this the Caribbean is no exception.

As long as citizenship programmes exist, questions will also remain about the granting of rights and free movement within CARICOM to those who are not required to reside, make no long-term economic or personal contribution, and who have no historic or cultural affinity to the region.

Source: Commentary: The View from Europe: Citizenship programmes: a race to the bottom? – Caribbean News Now