Australia: Peter Dutton concedes he will need to rethink English test in citizenship overhaul| The Guardian

Proposed bill continues to be in trouble:

The immigration minister, Peter Dutton, has admitted he will need to overhaul the English-language test in the government’s citizenship package to have any hope of getting the legislation through the parliament.

But the critical parliamentary powerbroker on the controversial citizenship overhaul, the Nick Xenophon Team, is signalling the rework will need to be more broad-ranging than just the language test.

“There are so many components of this whole package that are a problem,” the NXT senator Stirling Griff told Guardian Australia on Tuesday. “Our position hasn’t changed at all.

Australia offers to pay Rohingya refugees to return to Myanmar
Read more
“Peter Dutton needs to go back to the drawing board.”

Last week, the Senate gave Dutton four sitting days to put his controversial citizenship bill up for debate, otherwise it would be struck from the notice paper.

The procedural pincer movement in the parliament came less than a week after the Nick Xenophon Team derailed Dutton’s attempt to enact the citizenship package, saying it could not support it in its current form.

The government does not currently have the numbers to get its citizenship overhaul – which has been badged politically as a national security measure – through the parliament.

It has been unclear how the government would respond to the current parliamentary deadlock – whether it would pull the whole package, or negotiate – but Dutton on Tuesday signalled for the first time he was prepared to negotiate.

Asked whether he was prepared to overhaul the English-language test, which currently requires a university standard of language fluency, Dutton told Sky News: “Of course we are flexible.”

The minister said he was talking with Nick Xenophon in an effort to reach a compromise. Dutton described the dialogue with the NXT as “constructive”.

The government needs the NXT bloc because both Labor and the Greens are opposed to the package.

Dutton said the government’s objective was to ensure would-be citizens had a functional level of English, and improved their language proficiency over time.

The citizenship changes in their current form would increase the waiting times for permanent residents before they could apply for citizenship (from one year to four years) and force new applicants to complete a tougher English-language test (and achieve a pass mark of 75%) equivalent to level 6 of the international English language testing system (IELTS).

The package also gives Dutton significant power to overrule decisions on citizenship applications by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT).

As well as raising broad-ranging concerns about the practical implications of the package, the NXT has expressed particular objection to the enhanced ministerial powers over tribunal decisions.

Griff said on Tuesday the government needed to go back to the drawing board and consult more widely about the implications of the changes.

Source: Peter Dutton concedes he will need to rethink English test in citizenship overhaul | Australia news | The Guardian

USA: Fast Track to Citizenship Is Cut Off for Some Military Recruits – The New York Times

This US program inspired a comparable preference in Canada for citizenship applicants who had enrolled in the military in C-24:

Mohammed Anwar enlisted in April 2016 in the United States military through a program that promised him a fast track to citizenship. His ship date for basic training, expected within six months, was postponed twice. “It was common knowledge that there were delays because of new security checks,” said the 27-year-old Pakistani national, who lives in Jersey City.

Each month he donned a uniform and, as required, attended drill training with his Army Reserve unit in Connecticut.

Last week, Mr. Anwar got a call from his recruiter informing him that his enlistment had been terminated. “I was shocked, confused and angry that the United States government didn’t keep up with its commitment to me,” said Mr. Anwar, who was to work as a nurse.

The reason behind the decision to cut Mr. Anwar from the military remains unclear to him.

In the last week, recruiters have rescinded contracts for an unknown number of foreign nationals who had signed up for Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest, or Mavni, a program introduced in 2009 to attract immigrants with certain language and other skills that are in short supply into the armed forces.

More than 4,000 Mavni recruits have been in limbo since late last year, when the Department of Defense began introducing additional vetting. The protracted process has indefinitely delayed basic training for many enlistees, making it more difficult for recruiters to meet their targets. Recruiting stations are flooded with calls from many concerned that their lawful presence in the country could lapse while they await clearance.

“Emotionally, I can’t move forward with my life,” said Mr. Zhu, 27, who has master’s degrees in engineering from Columbia University and the University of Wyoming. “I am sure my contract is on the verge of being rescinded,” he added, because enlistees must report to training within two years of signing a contract.

Paul Haverstick, a Pentagon spokesman, confirmed that the Army must discharge recruits who have not shipped to initial military training within two years.

“Unfortunately, some Mavni recruits have been unable to complete the increased security screening required by the Department of Defense to ship to training within two years of enlistment,” he said, adding that the Army is still seeking ways to help those who have been affected.

“The Mavnis have become a huge problem for the recruiting command because they can’t ship out to their training until they complete mandated background checks,” said Margaret Stock, a retired lieutenant colonel in the Army Reserve who helped create the program. “If they can’t ship out, they aren’t doing the Army any good.”

Ankit Gajurel, a Nepalese mechanical engineer who enlisted in the Army Reserve in May 2016, recently had his training date postponed for the second time. But several of his references had been contacted by security officials, and he had been told by his recruiter that his “counterintelligence interview,” one of the last steps in the vetting process, would be scheduled for November.

President Donald Trump debuts his videotaped message to new U.S. citizens at the National Archives Friday morning – The Washington Post

Same shift in tone from integration to assimilation as noted earlier (Trump Administration Changes Focus of USCIS Immigrant #Citizenship Training to Assimilation – Breitbart):

President Trump, in his first official video message to newly minted U.S. citizens, welcomes them into the “American family” and exhorts them to “help newcomers assimilate to our way of life,” according to a copy of the video requested by The Washington Post.

The video will debut Friday after a citizenship ceremony at the National Archives in Washington. Thirty immigrants, from Mexico, Eritrea and other countries, will take the oath of citizenship.

A recorded presidential message has been played for new citizens at naturalization ceremonies since the administration of George W. Bush. Presidents also typically issue congratulatory letters.

What Trump would say in his video has been a point of curiosity for immigration advocates and others since he took office in January and began acting on campaign promises to dramatically reduce legal and illegal immigration. Citizenship applications soared last year, which some liberal groups said was a response to Trump’s candidacy and his tough talk on immigration.

In his 1 minute, 37 second video — one second longer than President Barack Obama’s — Trump lauds the “devotion to America” that he believes the new citizens will feel.

“No matter where you come from or what faith you practice, this country is now your country,” Trump says in the video. “You enjoy the full rights, and the sacred duties, that come with American citizenship — very, very special.”

“You now share the obligation to teach our values to others, to help newcomers assimilate to our way of life,” he adds.

That phrase could serve as a reminder of controversial claims Trump made last year on the campaign trail: that Muslims and other immigrants were failing to adapt to an American way of life.

Trump also signals that the United States should be the only home for American citizens. While new citizens take an oath renouncing allegiances to foreign states, many maintain dual citizenship if their countries of origin allow it.

“America is our home. We have no other,” Trump says in the video. “You have pledged allegiance to America. And when you give your love and loyalty to America, she returns her love and loyalty to you.”

Trump tells new citizens that Americans are “your brothers and sisters,” with “one American heart and one American destiny.”

In addition to unveiling the video Friday, acting Homeland Security Secretary Elaine Duke will deliver a keynote address to immigrants from Benin, Bangladesh, Cameroon, Canada, Colombia, Côte d’Ivoire, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, France, Guyana, India, Italy, Liberia, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Romania, Senegal, Slovakia, Togo and Vietnam.

The event marks U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ annual celebration of Constitution Day and Citizenship Day and kicks off a week of citizenship ceremonies nationwide. More than 30,000 green-card holders will officially become citizens at more than 200 ceremonies through Sept. 22.

Source: President Donal Trump debuts his videotaped message to new U.S. citizens at the National Archives Friday morning – The Washington Post

Latvian lawmakers divided over president’s citizenship initiative – Xinhua

Different take from most European countries (but in process of being rejected):

Latvian President Raimonds Vejonis has put before lawmakers a new bill that would allow non-citizens’ children to become Latvian citizens at birth, but one of the partners in Latvia’s center-right government coalition has already promised to block its passage in parliament, local media reported.

The rightist National Alliance has said it will exercise its veto rights under the coalition agreement to prevent the draft law from being adopted.

Vejonis proposes to stop registering non-citizens’ children, born after June 1, 2018, as non-citizens and grant them Latvian citizenship unless their parents choose to register them as citizens of some other country. The president believes that this would help consolidate the Latvian nation on the basis of common values.

The president reminded that non-citizenship status was introduced in Latvia and its neighbor Estonia as a temporary solution in the early 1990s. At present, however, babies born to non-citizens are only registered as non-citizens in Latvia.

“Ending the registration of children as non-citizens is a symbolic step that would end the divisions purposefully created between various groups of Latvia’s society,” Vejonis said, adding that doing away with non-citizenship would enable consolidation of Latvia’s society, allowing to devote all efforts to the country’s development.

If the bill is adopted, it would apply to approximately 50 to 80 newsborns a year. Last year, 52 babies born in Latvia were registered as non-citizens.

Although the president’s initiative has already been endorsed by the opposition leftist Harmony party, Edgars Tavars, the leader of the ruling Green Party, a group of lawmakers who recently left the ruling center-right Unity party to form a new liberal party, as well as Ombudsman Juris Jansons, its future is quite uncertain because the National Alliance’s resistance, which can threaten the coalition’s stability.

Latvian Prime Minister Maris Kucinskis said Tuesday morning that he would not risk a disintegration of the current government coalition and that the president’s citizenship proposal would therefore be rejected.

Under the current legislation, effective since 2013, non-citizens’ children can be registered as Latvian citizens if at least one of the parents has expressly declared such a wish.

Since the mid-1990s when non-citizens made up 29 percent of Latvia’s population, their share has contracted to 11 percent, according to the data of the Latvian citizenship and migration authority.

Source: Latvian lawmakers divided over president’s citizenship initiative – Xinhua | English.news.cn

Brexit in Germany: ′Citizenship is not a panacea′ for Brits | DW | 13.09.2017

People having to make choices and the instrumental nature of citizenship:

Along with financial settlement and trade, the rights of citizens are a crucial part of the divorce talksbetween the UK and EU. But progress has been slower than many had hoped. In the meantime, anxiety grows among many of the three million EU citizens in the UK and 1.2 million Brits living and working in the EU. Chancellor Angela Merkel has sought to reassure the 100,000 Britons living in Germany that no one will be sent home, but with an election on the horizon, future conditions are anything but clear. Merkel’s advice? Go for German nationality, as she told one British expat: “to put yourself on a completely safe track.”

In Germany, Brits have been scrambling to get citizenship, which they seem to see as an insurance policy, not only to be able to remain in the country but also to retain the broader palette of rights they enjoy as EU citizens. Germany’s Statistics Office released figures in June revealing an “extraordinary increase” in the number of British citizens granted German passports in 2016. Overall naturalizations increased by 2.9 percent in comparison to 2015, whereas the number of Brits granted German citizenship soared by 361 percent to 2,865. While the agency does not specifically gather information on motivation to acquire citizenship, it did note that the surge was “quite obviously due to Brexit.”

For those who are well settled in Germany, applying is an administrative burden, but the requirements are not especially onerous: Those who have lived in the country for eight years (seven, if they pass a German-language integration test) — or for three years and been married to a German for two — are eligible to apply. Other requirements include proof of language proficiency, financial independence, a clean criminal record and a fee of 255 euros ($304).

Time limit for dual citizenship

Nick Wolfe, 29, a lawyer in Munich, says his recent application is “purely pushed on by Brexit” as well as the tight timeframe: “If you want to take German citizenship, you have to renounce your previous one, unless you are an EU citizen. What the relevant authorities here have been saying is that if you actually receive your German citizenship before March 2019, you’re okay. If you receive it afterwards, you will have to give up your British nationality to take up your German one.”

…And if it came to it, Wolfe would find it hard to give up his British nationality: “There’s a very emotional connection to it. So that’s why it’s obviously best if you can have both.”

Indeed, time is running out to submit a citizenship application. The city of Munich received 271 in the first six months of this year and granted 88. But each local authority handles applications separately, and requirements and processing times can vary wildly. In some places applicants wait up nine months just for an initial appointment, a further few months for an appointment to submit their application and then six to 12 months for processing, taking the amount of time to receive citizenship beyond the March 2019 deadline.

“It’s really complicated and there’s no one that gives you any real guidance on it,” Nick Wolfe said. “So you’re kind of at their mercy.”

Brits abroad as bargaining chips

Ingrid Taylor heads the Bavarian branch of the “British in Germany” campaign, which along with the broader “British in Europe” coalition represents UK citizens in the EU, and is awaiting the outcome of a citizenship application she submitted last November.

She speaks scathingly of the lack of support from the British government: “Because we are disenfranchised no one cares about us,” she says, referring to the fact that Brits lose their right to vote in Britain after 15 years of residence abroad. “They’re not going to look after our interests — because we can’t vote, there’s no gain in it for them.”

But fast-track citizenship cannot be the sole solution, according to Jane Golding, chair of the British in Europe: “Citizenship is not a panacea for all the issues. What we’ve had as EU citizens is a really complex bundle of interlinked rights: your right to free movement; to residence; to equal treatment; to work; to have your qualifications recognized; all sorts of rights about pensions and healthcare, all in one bundle. And you need all of them in order to live and work and have a life in another country.”

For Golding, it’s now crunch time: The bargaining-chip status of Brits in the EU must end, and rights must be guaranteed.

“We are a finite group of people who in good faith, and with legitimate expectations, thought that our rights were for life. What we are asking is that all of our rights, our complex bundle of rights are simply guaranteed.”

And as the withdrawal agreement is taking much longer to draw up than hoped, they are also asking for citizens’ rights to be ring-fenced for the rest of the negotiations: “Because we are people, these are people’s lives, and we have been living in limbo and uncertainty for all this time.”

Source: Brexit in Germany: ′Citizenship is not a panacea′ for Brits | Germany | DW | 13.09.2017

A Test of Australian Identity: Waleed Aly – The New York Times

The best piece I have seen to date on the Australian political “crisis” over dual citizenship and the obsolescent and overly broad nature of the prohibition:

It will be a fascinating legal test, boiling down to whether the Constitution is meant to cover cases in which people say they had no idea they were citizens of another country. On that point, the wording isn’t encouraging. The Constitution expressly prohibits anyone from Parliament who “is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power.”

But legal intricacies aside, it’s the talk of “subjects” that is most telling. As it stands, Section 44 of the Constitution is beginning to look like something of a relic, a monument to the 19th century that created it, and a pointer to just how profoundly Australia has changed.

Its animating idea is one of loyalty: that Australian parliamentarians must be shorn of any “allegiance, obedience or adherence to a foreign power.” But this was written at a time when Australian citizenship didn’t properly exist.

Australians were subjects of the British Empire, and the thought of simultaneously being subjects of another country would have been seen as a conflict. But the British Empire is no more, and since the end of World War II, this particular British outpost has become a thoroughly immigrant nation. That’s a rapid transition for a nation that had a “White Australia” policy until the early 1970s.

Today, nearly half of Australians were either born overseas or have at least one parent who was. In this context, dual citizenship is part of the grammar of Australian society. That’s why even the most avowedly nationalistic parties, like One Nation, have been caught up in this mess. It doesn’t matter how exclusively Australian you say you are, chances are you’ve come from somewhere else not very long ago.

That’s more than a mere demographic change. It’s a change in the notion of Australian identity.

We could say there are two ideal (and simplified) kinds of nationhood: one anchored firmly in ethnicity and culture and another built on a civil creed. Germany is frequently cited as an example of the former (it shed its citizenship laws requiring a blood connection to the country only in 2000). America, with its civil religion of individual liberty, is the classic example of the latter. Australia’s story is of a gradual, if incomplete, transition from the European to the American model.

It began as a self-consciously derivative nation, drawing its sense of self overwhelmingly from the Empire, and became a cosmopolitan New World society. Any attempt to maintain an exclusive ethnic sense of Australianness would inevitably fall apart under those conditions. There is nationalist resistance to this, but Australian identity has now become something that exists in combination with any number of other cultural identities.

This leaves Australia in a conundrum. To exclude dual citizens from Australian politics is to exclude contemporary Australia itself, and yet this is what Australia’s Constitution demands.

In the foreseeable future, this probably means a wave of political candidates renouncing their foreign citizenship. But at no stage are anyone’s loyalties likely to be altered.

Modern Australia has multiple, simultaneous identities, whether expressed in government documents or not. We will remain a nation of people with emotional attachments to foreign lands of which we’re not citizens, and of citizenships of lands to which we feel no attachment. In this instance, it’s not our dual citizens but our Constitution that’s un-Australian. Funny, that.

How to debate immigration issues in Canada (Do’s and Don’ts) – Policy Options

My reflections and suggestions on how to have a more respectful and informed conversation on immigration and related issues.

In thinking through the issues, I developed the following guidelines:

  • Be explicit about assumptions. Be mindful of conscious and unconscious biases that may inform assumptions and selection of evidence;
  • Be curious and assess the best evidence available, recognize that it may be imperfect, and avoid relying on anecdote alone;
  • Resist the temptation to use round ‘catchy’ numbers for communication purposes without substantiation or appropriate qualification;
  • Do not assume that all non-immigrants, immigrants or members of specific groups have the same beliefs, values and perspectives;
  • Use language and tone carefully to ensure respectful discussion and dialogue and avoid “demonizing” those with a different perspective;
  • Criticize words and behaviours, not the person;
  • When choosing quotes, consider the overall context and not just the particular selection;
  • Do not overplay the “I am an immigrant/am married to an immigrant/am a child of immigrants” to justify one’s position; and,
  • Do not assume that being part of a “dominant” culture means one’s views should take precedence over others.

Hope you find these guidelines and the do’s and don’ts in the article helpful.

Source: How to debate immigration issues in Canada – Policy Options

Australian security agencies may not have approved tighter citizenship laws | The Guardian

Not going well (with good reason):

Immigration officials have been unable to say whether they gained security agency backing for tighter citizenship laws before Peter Dutton announced the controversial overhaul.

The officials told a Senate inquiry in Brisbane they could not confirm whether the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (Asio) or the Australian federal police raised a need for the proposed changes, or were consulted specifically about them before they were unveiled in April.

The Labor senator Murray Watt seized on the testimony on Thursday as “evidence that shows very clearly there is no national security case for a tightening of the citizenship laws”.

Watt told the Guardian: “Peter Dutton’s own department was unable to produce any evidence that any national security agency had asked for these changes.”

The department also confirmed it knew before the announcement that people who completed the government-funded Adult Migrant English Program (Amep) would still fall short of the university-level English required under the new legislation.

“I think it’s bizarre that we have a government-funded program to help train people in English that will not even be able to provide the level required from the government’s own citizenship test,” Watt said.

David Wilden, a first assistant secretary at the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, told the inquiry he could not “give a definitive answer” to whether Asio gave any advice that tougher citizenship rules were needed to protect national security.

“I’d have to check, I don’t think we went to a specific piece of advice on this bill,” he said, adding the department had ongoing dialogues with the intelligence agency.

Linda Geddes, an acting secretary of the department, said it was the same case with the AFP.

When Watts asked whether the department had consulted either agency specifically on the bill, Wilden said he was unsure and would try to find an answer before the deadline for committee submissions on Friday.

The final day of hearings by the Senate legal and constitutional affairs legislation committee came after the inquiry having received more than 10,000 submissions against Dutton’s proposal.

Only two were in favour: from Dutton’s own department, and the Australian Monarchist League. The committee is due to report next Tuesday.

The immigration officials at the inquiry said the department had considered the fact that most people completing Amep would be at level 4 or 4.5 under the international English-language testing system (Ielts), short of the level 6 required for citizenship.

Wilden said these people would need to show “self-agency” and further their own English study to meet the new mark.

The Labor frontbencher Tony Burke told the Guardian he was “now confident the bill won’t be passed in its current form but I’m not yet confident” it would be rejected in the Senate, as Labor hoped.

When Watt read out a section of the Ielts test relating to Herodotus’ 480BC account of calisthenics at the battle of Thermopylae, “the whole room fell about laughing at just how ridiculous the level of language required was”, Burke said.

“People laughed, and then they reflected on it, and then the frustration started to take over the room when people realised exactly what that would mean in their own instances,” he said. “There was a despondency of people saying, if that’s the new rule, I’ll never become a citizen.”

Source: Australian security agencies may not have approved tighter citizenship laws | Australia news | The Guardian

Australia: Coalition warned it has ‘uphill battle’ in high court over citizenship and postal vote | The Guardian

As noted, only reasonable solution in an immigration-based country is to repeal section 44 and allow dual citizenship:

The government faces an “uphill battle” in major high court cases dealing with the same-sex marriage postal survey and the eligibility of seven parliamentarians on the current reading of the law, George Williams has warned.

In a speech to the National Press Club on Wednesday, the constitutional law expert and University of NSW professor accused the government of “a surprising constitutional adventurism” in testing the limits of its power and relying on a “creative, quite liberal and generous reading of those powers” by the court.

In October the high court will hear the cases challenging the eligibility of the deputy prime minister, Barnaby Joyce, the Nationals senator Matt Canavan, the resigned Greens senators Scott Ludlam and Larissa Waters, and the One Nation senator Malcolm Roberts. Nick Xenophon and Fiona Nash will also be referred.

Williams said that “on the current law it is difficult to see … that any of the seven parliamentarians who will face the high court are likely to survive that challenge”.

“It is hard to see any of them have taken the reasonable steps that the high court requires to divest themselves of foreign citizenship.”

Williams suggested Labor’s Katy Gallagher could also be in difficulty, depending on the high court ruling, and likened citizenship by descent to a “Pandora’s box” that could claim up to “20 or more parliamentarians”.

Section 44 of the constitution disqualifies anyone who “is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power” from sitting in parliament.

The Turnbull government insists it has strong legal advice from the solicitor general that the better view of the law is that some element of intention or acquiescence to foreign citizenship is required.

Williams warned that view was based on William Dean’s dissent in the case of Sykes v Cleary and it was “exceedingly rare” for a later court to adopt a dissenting view.

Another possible reading – to exclude only those members who have foreign citizenship by birth – had no support in the constitution, he said.

Williams said Joyce’s and the Greens’ eligibility problems “speak less of a constitutional problem … and more of complacency and poor vetting” by political parties. He cited a simple check he had performed online to confirm a person in Joyce’s situation was a New Zealand citizen by descent.

“In this case it is hard to see why the high court would fashion an exemption when candidates have been warned of this problem and when the information is very easy to obtain through a simple check on the internet.”

Williams described Malcolm Turnbull’s confidence that the high court will find Joyce eligible as “misplaced”.

Williams said section 44 was out of date, arguing it was “hardly consistent with our sovereignty, our stability as a democracy” to allow eligibility for parliament to be determined by other countries’ laws.

Source: Coalition warned it has ‘uphill battle’ in high court over citizenship and postal vote | Australia news | The Guardian

Myanmar: Annan report calls for review of 1982 Citizenship Law 

Ongoing issue, one that reflects poorly on Myanmar:

An advisory commission tasked with finding sustainable solutions in Rakhine State has submitted its final report to the government, where it called for freedom of movement for all people in Rakhine and a review of the controversial 1982 Citizenship Law.

The Advisory Commission on Rakhine State, headed by former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, was formed by State Counsellor Daw Aung San Suu Kyi in September 2016. It was formed by the October 9 attacks in northern Rakhine State, which led to a military crackdown that has come with allegations of human rights violations.

An estimated 1.1 million Muslims – many who identify as Rohingya, a term the government rejects – are denied access to citizenship in line with the citizenship law, which was enacted by former dictator U Ne Win. The law does not recognise the Rohingya as one of the country’s 135 recognised ethnic groups.

The commission’s report, released on Thursday, urged the government to bring the law in line with international standards and abolish “different distinctions between different types of citizens”. The law currently recognises full citizens, associate citizens and naturalised citizens.

The report also urged the commission to begin a process to review the citizenship law “to ensure the equitable treatment of all citizens”.

Many of the Rohingya in the state face severe restrictions on movements, and while the commission acknowledged recent efforts by the government to improve freedom of movement in the north of the state, it said it had only effected those holding the correct identification.

“To have greater impact, freedom of movement should be delinked from the citizenship verification process, meaning that all individuals in Rakhine State should be able to move freely irrespective of whether they hold an NVC [National Verification Card], NRC card [National Registration Card] or citizenship documentation, consistent with the basic right of all people to free movement,” the report said.

An estimated 120,000 Muslims are confined to IDP camps in Rakhine, many without access to basic livelihoods such as education, healthcare and livelihoods. The report said that efforts to allow the return of people home has “shown little progress”, and called on the government to develop a “comprehensive strategy towards closing all IDP camps” in the state.

It said the process should be developed through consultation with affected communities and should have clear timelines, adding that all returns and relocations must be voluntary and should allow people to return to their place of origin as a priority.

In the interim, it suggested improving shelter, water, sanitation and livelihoods in the IDP camps.

In northern Rakhine State, humanitarian and media access has largely been cut off since the October attacks, and the commission urged the government to ensure full and regular access to all parts of the state.

The military has been accused of using disproportionate force in its operations, including allegations of mass rape, extrajudicial killing and torture. The government and military have continuously denied all charges.

In March, the UN Human Rights Council passed a resolution to form an investigation team to probe rights abuses in Myanmar, with a particular focus on Rakhine. However, the Myanmar government has denied visas to its members.

The commission called for an “independent and impartial investigation” into the facts on the ground in order to ensure that those who conducted violations are held accountable.

Additionally, the commission called on the government form a ministry tasked solely with implementing its recommendations. It said the appointment should inintially be a one-year appointment and deliver public quarterly reports.

“The secretariat’s staff should be in permanent consultation with groups in Rakhine State in the implementation of its work,” the commission said.

Source: Annan report calls for review of 1982 Citizenship Law | Frontier Myanmar