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

Norway’s government wants to allow dual citizenship – The Local

The last hold-out among the Nordics:
Norway’s government is to pave the way towards allowing dual citizenship in the Scandinavian country, with a proposal to be put to parliament this autumn.

The proposal will give new rights to thousands of people with connections to both Norway and a second country.

“We will notify in the state budget that there will be a hearing on the proposal to allow dual citizenship,” immigration minister Sylvi Listhaug told NRK.

For pro-dual citizenship NGO Norwegians Worldwide, which has long campaigned for a law change in the area, the announcement represents a positive change in the government’s position on Norwegians with an international outlook.

“We are extremely happy that the government wants to change an outdated and unfair law that has huge consequences for Norwegian families worldwide. This is a key issue for us and we are delighted on behalf of all those affected by the law against double citizenship,” Norwegians Worldwide general secretary Hanne K. Aaberg said in a press statement.

Donna Fox, co-founder of lobbying group ‘Ja til dobbelt statsborgerskap’ (Yes to dual citizenship) also welcomed the announcement.

“This announcement is fantastic news. After three years of lobbying for the principle of dual citizenship in Norway, Ja til dobbelt statsborgerskap has succeeded in convincing the government to change its outdated mono-citizenship law. Thousands of Norwegian families with connection to two countries, long term permanent Norwegian residents, and future generations will benefit from the right to vote, live and reside without restriction between their countries of citizenship,” Fox told The Local.

Norway is currently the only Nordic country and one of only a small handful of European nations that does not allow dual citizenship, although exceptions to citizenship rules do provide for it in some cases.

Source: Norway’s government wants to allow dual citizenship – The Local