Qatar’s recruited athletes stir debate on citizenship

Common situation to all Gulf states, save perhaps the athlete example:

When 39 athletes from Qatar qualified for the Rio Olympics, the most in the tiny Gulf state’s history, Noor al-Shalaby celebrated the achievement in a Facebook post.

“Qatar! You are in my blood and my soul,” wrote the 34-year-old accountant.

The small team delivered the country’s first silver medal at the Rio Olympics.

And the Olympians – at least 23 of whom were born outside Qatar and brought in to help the country flourish athletically – are a source of pride for Egyptian-born Shalaby, who was raised in Qatar.

But their status is also a reminder of restrictive citizenship laws that have complicated Shalaby’s life and made her future uncertain.

Qatar has for years used its immense oil and gas wealth to recruit sportspeople from around the world, part of an ambitious vault onto the world sporting stage by the wealthy Arab state which will host the soccer World Cup in 2022.

Kenyan runners and Bulgarian weightlifters granted citizenship to compete internationally for Qatar are compared by outsiders to ‘mercenaries’ sent to win medals for Doha and promote its standing abroad.

But the practice of handing passports to these athletes has stirred a debate about national identity inside Qatar where residents like Shalaby who have lived in the country for decades, and whose expertise may be needed in a post-oil economy, have no obvious path to citizenship.

“I was born in Doha… my friends are Qatari and, in my heart, I am too.” she said. “Of course it hurts that I am not a citizen.”

LAWS ‘OUTDATED’

The influx of foreigners into the once-impoverished Gulf states goes back to the discovery of oil in the 1930s.

The growth of hydrocarbon industries brought in thousands of Arab workers, including Syrians and Palestinians, to bolster small local populations.

Many secured jobs and settled in the Gulf among local Sunni Muslim populations who had traditionally lived in the desert or in small coastal towns, living off pearling and trade.

But as numbers of foreign residents rose and millions of South Asian labourers were brought in to power construction booms, tightly-knit Gulf populations saw demographic change as a threat to their way of life.

Attuned to this, Gulf authorities have kept heavily guarded rights to nationality.

Qatar, a former backwater that is the world’s largest LNG exporter, is home to a vast foreign population that ranges from low-paid construction labourers living in camps outside cities to top executives who receive generous tax-free salaries.

No legal provisions exist allowing foreigners, who account for around 90% of Qatar’s 2.3 million population, to become permanent residents.

Instead a handful of foreigners who must speak Arabic and have resided in the country for at least 25 consecutive years are absorbed into Qatar’s citizenry on a case by case basis that requires approval from the emir.

A Qatar government spokesperson was not immediately available to comment. Officials, including the former emir, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, have said nationality is given to people who apply and fulfil regulations.

“ADDING VALUE”

But some younger Qataris are now questioning the laws controlling citizenship, calling them outdated.

“If these guys get naturalized then what about doctors, scientists, engineers, academics and artists? Don’t they add more value to society?,” Hamad al-Khater, a public sector employee, tweeted after the Olympic debut of Qatar’s handball team, 11 out of 14 of whom are naturalised athletes.

A prominent Emirati commentator argued in a 2013 op-ed for citizenship to be opened to long-time foreign residents including entrepreneurs, scientists and academics who have contributed to society.

But many remain deeply apprehensive about relaxing citizenship laws: they fear the added expense – Qatar spends billions of dollars each year on free education, healthcare, and housing loans for its estimated 300,000 citizens – and question whether naturalised citizens could ever become true Qataris.

“Even without naturalising people, our identity is in a kind of crisis. Giving out passports would complicate things,” said businessman Abdullah al-Mohannadi, 32.

There is concern too that foreigners might have an adverse influence on Qatar’s dynastic political system and conservative culture – based on deep-rooted tribal values that are already considered under threat.

“What happens down the line when these individuals and their descendants call for change and go against Qatar’s political stability?” said Faisal al-Shadi, a Lebanese student born in Qatar. “These citizens might come together and challenge the status quo”.

After growth peaks and Qatar moves towards a post-oil economy, analysts say, the economic rationale for restricting citizenship could change.

“Qatar will need to attract long-term residents who can contribute to the tax base and support what will eventually become an ageing population,” said a Doha-based university lecturer.

“Residency rights are one way to entice professionals to stay in the country for longer.”

Source: Qatar’s recruited athletes stir debate on citizenship

Conflicting loyalties? Germany debates dual citizenship 

Good report on some aspects of the debate:

Germany’s debate on dual citizenship seems to be at odds with its inclusive approach to refugees – and its economic success story. Turks, in particular, feel ostracized when German officials question their loyalty.

Dual citizenship

Earlier this week, Chancellor Angela Merkel announced that she and her government expect a “high level of loyalty” to be displayed by Germany’s largest immigrant community: the Turkish diaspora. Her divisive remarks came after mass rallies were held in support of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan following last month’s thwarted coup.

Recent security threats across the country have also prompted a re-evaluation of immigration strategy, putting the chancellor in the uncomfortable position of having to balance her welcoming approach toward refugees with the realities of Germany’s history of lacking long-term plans to integrate new residents.

Merkel questioned some Turks’ loyalty after tens of thousands rallied in support of Erdogan

Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere also made remarks that seemed to challenge the allegiance of dual nationals, saying that allowing people to hold multiple citizenships was not a desirable long-term goal for the government.

The chairman of Germany’s TGD Turkish community association, which primarily functions as a legal network, said he welcomed the chancellor’s initiative as a way to advance the loyalty discussion, but he also criticized the idea that a series of unconnected events could call into question the allegiance of millions of people who live in Germany.

“It can’t be that a debate on loyalty is sparked purely on the basis of ethnic Turks’ participating at a rally in Cologne,” Gökay Sofuoglu told DW, adding that “milestones of social integration and participation” were suddenly being questioned – including dual citizenship.

“We have played a major role in rebuilding this country,” Sofuoglu said, referring to post-World War II reconstruction. “It is sad that the accomplishments of that first generation haven’t been honored or even acknowledged but are rather repeatedly being questioned. All these discussions only go to prove this country’s ingratitude and its total failure at its immigration policy.”

‘Mistakes were made’

Though having multiple nationalities is regarded as worldly and debonair in many cultures, Germany’s attitude is more conflicted. The subject of dual citizenship can touch a nerve as Germany tries to nail down an identity in a multicultural age; the country has become the second most popular destination for immigration after the United States, according to UN figures.

De Maiziere said facilitating dual citizenship was not in the long-term interest of the government

“Germany now has 55 years of experience of dealing with migrants,” Sofuoglu said. “We all know what mistakes were made in the past. It would be beneficial if – rather than continuing to alienate migrants and questioning their loyalties – we helped open doors and create opportunities for these people arriving in Germany now.”

The response to terror threats is a factor in the dual nationality debate, as is the potential reintroduction of compulsory military conscription. German law automatically dictates the loss of citizenship in most instances if a national joins another nation’s military, yet the armed forces are currently considering allowing citizens of other EU states to join.

A two-tiered society

The TGD’s Sofuoglu argues that threatening to revoke dual citizenship and forcing people from ethnic minorities to choose creates “second-class German nationals” who have to live in constant fear of having their privileges taken away.

Sofuoglu, a dual national, said Germany’s restrictive policy amounts to ingratitude

“No one would come up with the idea of revoking the citizenship of a native German without a migrant background who acts in an undesirable way,” Sofuoglu said. “So why do other people who were also born and raised here have to abide by a different set of standards simply because they have their roots abroad? … Because some of them chose to partake in a rally in favor of the Turkish president?”

“If loyalty to the state is such a problem, what about those right extremists protesting against Merkel and insinuating that she should be executed for allowing refugees to come to Germany?” Sofuoglu said. “Is that what they call loyalty?”

Source: Conflicting loyalties? Germany debates dual citizenship | News | DW.COM | 24.08.2016

7 Countries Where You Can Buy Citizenship – Insider Monkey

The list: Dominica, Grenada, Saint Lucia, Antigua & Barbuda, St Kitts and Nevis, Cyprus and Malta. Also a useful passport index in terms of the number of visa-free countries citizens can travel to:

The other option is citizenship-by-investment programs. They are a controversial subject in many countries, especially in the European Union. The Brussels administration is trying to force EU members to cancel them or at least limit them in scope, so if you’re planning to move to the Old Continent, you might want to hurry while these are still available. There aren’t many countries in the world that offer this kind of programs, but unlike the golden visa category, they guarantee a citizenship, provided you pass the government background checks and meet other conditions.

For the most part, these refer to the origin of the money being invested and the applicants’ country of origin. If your country is under any form of international sanctions, you will most likely be rejected. These regulations were tightened after US Department of Treasury issued a warning about Iranian citizens using St Kitts and Nevis citizenship-by-investment program to obtain entry to the US and make investments, despite the sanctions imposed against that country. Of course, if your money is lawfully earned and you’re just looking for a second passport, you have nothing to worry about. If your goal is to avoid US taxes, a word of warning, though. Just because you don’t live in the United States doesn’t mean that the IRS will let you out of their money-grubbing paws. As long as you are US citizen, you owe them money. The only way to be free of them is to renounce your citizenship and most people aren’t willing to go to such lengths just to avoid paying taxes. There are examples, though, like the Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin, who gave up his citizenship in 2012.

So, here are 7 countries where you can buy citizenship. Four [five] of them are Caribbean countries  and two are EU members . Interestingly enough, all 6 are rather small island nations. They also lack natural resources, which is one of the main reasons for the institution of citizenship-by-investment programs. We listed them according to each country’s passport power rank, found here.

Canadian woman’s case galvanizes Chinese moms in custody battles – The Globe and Mail

Another reminder of some of the risks related to international custody battles. Global Affairs Canada is working on over 300 known cases worldwide (the actual number is likely higher):

Ms. Dai is now midway through an appeal, her final avenue for securing access to her son.

She has borne the costs alone. Like Alison Azer, the Courtenay, B.C. woman whose children were allegedly abducted to Iran, Ms. Dai has struggled to get help from home. She has written Foreign Affairs Minister Stéphane Dion and multiple people at the Canadian embassy in Beijing. One told her to call local police if her child was in danger and declined her request for a letter of support she could use in court: “this would involve the Government of Canada in a private legal matter, which is not part of our mandate as consular officials.”

Ms. Dai said she sees that as “a message to other Canadian mothers” in China that “if they get in any sort of trouble, be aware that no one can help.”

In an e-mail, Foreign Affairs spokesman François Lasalle said officials are providing Ms. Dai “consular assistance,” and “work hard” to support more than 300 Canadian families worldwide in similar circumstances. A new Chinese domestic violence law, enacted this year, “is a significant improvement” but “still has important shortcomings,” he said.

“We are committed to ensuring the promotion and protection of women’s and girls’ human rights,” he said.

Ms. Dai, however, has found greater support from others in China after she took her fight public, galvanizing other mothers to confront weaknesses in their legal system and advocate for change in a country where fast-rising divorce rates are approaching U.S. levels. Ms. Dai has made advocacy a full-time job, securing a small office in Beijing and hiring three assistants.

Her story has been published by more than 200 media outlets and she has been interviewed on national television shows. She has hired the lawyer who represented Kim Lee, an American woman beaten by her famous Chinese husband, a hotly discussed case that drew national attention to domestic abuse problems in China.

The pain Ms. Dai suffered “is more severe” than what Ms. Lee endured, her lawyer, Qi Lianfeng, said in an interview.

Ms. Dai says her former husband, movie stuntman Liu Jie, slapped her, pushed her to the ground, stomped on her face and once wrenched her leg so badly she had trouble walking.

In a trial last year, however, Mr. Liu argued that Tristan should stay with him because Ms. Dai “is irresponsible, doesn’t care about the son or want to raise him” and was too busy working, according to a summary contained in the verdict released this spring. The judge found that Mr. Liu had hit Ms. Dai, but gave him custody nonetheless, citing “the principle of benefiting his healthy physical and mental growth.”

Reached for comment, Mr. Liu said “it’s a family matter,” and asked for privacy.

The stakes in China are high for fathers and their families. The long-standing one-child policy means a child, especially a son, is expected to “carry on the family blood,” said Li Ying, a lawyer and director of a Beijing legal assistance agency.

When those families seize their children, they also gain an advantage in court, where judges tend to view leaving the child in place as less disruptive, heavily emphasizing possession.

Courts also have little power to enforce custody rulings. And authorities try to keep problems quiet. Ms. Dai was visited by police before holding a recent conference on custody issues, and subsequently asked a Globe and Mail reporter not to attend to avoid further problems.

Still, custody problems are not unique to China, which is moving to ensure a new domestic violence law, enacted this year, creates real change. Officials are currently drafting detailed guidelines for its enforcement.

“In the future, things will be better, particularly in custody matters,” said Yang Xiaolin, a lawyer who was part of a special team at Nanjing Normal University examining problems with child custody.

But, he said, attitudes must first change.

“The Chinese legal system has yet to treat juveniles seriously,” he said. To decide custody, “a child’s needs must be taken into account. Not only their material needs, but also emotional ones.”

Source: Canadian woman’s case galvanizes Chinese moms in custody battles – The Globe and Mail

Ottawa’s new air-travel rule catches dual citizens by surprise

While I have some sympathy for those taken by surprise if this change was not adequately communicated in advance, I have little for the substantive nature of some of the complaints mentioned in the article.

There were and are sound policy and program reasons for this requirement, linked to the eTA.

Tellingly, all those quoted come from dual citizens from the UK or Australia, although this situation would likely apply to most dual citizens from countries that Canada does not require a visa.

Dual citizens who come from developing countries, many of whom do not formally allow for dual citizenship and thus who have to travel back to their country of origin on that country’s passport, generally use their Canadian passport to return to Canada as airlines only accept passports as reliable proof of citizenship:

Canadian citizens with dual citizenships will soon be allowed to fly into the country only if they have a Canadian passport.

The policy will come into effect Sept. 30 as a final phase of Canada’s move to an electronic screening system to step up border security and boost exit control of travellers, including Canadians on government benefits.

The upcoming requirement has caught many by surprise calling the practice “discriminatory” against dual citizens and a money grab, and is expected to create havoc as travellers with dual Canadian citizenships may find out only at the last minute when trying to board on a flight.

“What is changing is that the Government of Canada is implementing a new electronic system to assist airlines in verifying that all travellers have the appropriate documents to travel to or transit through Canada by air,” Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada spokesperson Lindsay Wemp told the Star.

“Air carriers are obligated by law to confirm that all persons seeking to travel to Canada carry both proof of citizenship and proof of identity. A valid Canadian passport satisfies these requirements for Canadian citizens, and is the only acceptable travel document for the purpose of air travel.”

Currently, Canadian citizens with dual citizenships can use the passport of the other country to enter Canada by air if they can provide proofs of residency in Canada, such as a driver’s licence and Canadian citizenship card.

According to the 2011 Census, at least 2.9 per cent of Canadians — 944,700 people — had multiple citizenships; the most frequently reported other citizenships were the United States, the United Kingdom, France and Poland.

Ottawa rolled out the electronic travel authorization, or eTA, system last year, requiring air passengers — including all applicants for study and work permits, as well as those from countries that currently do not require a visa to come to Canada — to submit their biographic, passport and other personal information through the immigration department website for prescreening or face being denied entry. American citizens are exempted.

 However, Canadian citizens will be ineligible for eTA of Sept. 30, because they will be expected to carry their Canadian passports which, by default, bar dual citizens from using the passport of the other country to return to Canada. What baffles several observers about the new rule is that it only applies to air passengers.

“This proposed policy change is discriminatory to dual citizens and for the life of me, I cannot see why it is necessary. It would appear to be a money grab with no benefit and huge inconvenience for any of us who live overseas,” said Craig Campbell, 60, who was born to a military family in Manitoba and is a dual Canadian-Australian citizen.

“There is time to fix this appalling discriminatory policy. I served the country of my birth as did my father, uncles, aunts and grandfather before me. This is simply a shameful way to treat one very small category of proud Canadians for no discernible benefit to the country.”

Calgary-born Carey Du Gray, 45, who has lived in the U.K. since 2009, said he only found out about the new requirement when he was trying to book travel two weeks ago to fly home in October.

“My daughters were born in the U.K., but they are Canadian citizens. They would not be able to travel to Canada using their British passports. What lunacy, eh?” asked Du Gray, a fundraising consultant based in London.

“What followed was a 48-hour scramble to get all of the documentation and photos together. The guidance on the (Canadian) website said they were taking up to 40 business days to process new passport applications on account of the flood of them that are coming in ahead of the policy change.”

Canadian expatriate Sandi Logan, who worked in the Australian immigration department, said the requirement on dual citizens’ travel just doesn’t make sense.

“It’s bad policy on so many fronts. It discriminates against dual citizens of Canada for starters. It discriminates against dual citizens of Canada flying into any Canadian port, as opposed to arriving by sea or land,” said Logan, 59, who was born and raised in Toronto before settling in Australia in 1980.

“From my vast bureaucratic experience in the public service, it has all of the hallmarks of being a simple revenue grab masked as ‘border security,’ with no discernible impact on safe and stronger borders.”

Source: Ottawa’s new air-travel rule catches dual citizens by surprise | Toronto Star

Liberal appeal for expat donations offends those still barred from voting

Not the brightest move given the inevitable backlash from some. For my analysis of expatriate voting, see my earlier What should expatriates’ voting rights be? – Policy Options:

An appeal by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to Canadians living abroad for donations to the Liberal party has struck a sour note with disenfranchised long-term expats.

The cash solicitation on Trudeau’s Facebook page calls on Canadians living abroad to be part of “Canada’s most open and progressive movement,” and says under a picture of the prime minister that “your donations help fuel our party.”

Various comments reflect the displeasure of those unable to vote in federal elections because of a law — only enforced by the previous Conservative government under Stephen Harper — that strips voting rights from those who have lived outside Canada for more than five years.

“Asking for my donation after removing my right to vote is just offensive,” wrote Ian Doig, who lives in Houston.

Another commenter, Angus McGillicuddy, offered a similar sentiment.

“Not going to waste my money until our constitutionally guaranteed right to vote is restored,” McGillicuddy said.

The disenfranchising of an estimated 1.4 million long-term expats has been a running legal battle since Canadians abroad found they could not vote in the 2011 election. While the rules were first enacted in 1993, they had not been enforced until then.

Two Canadians living in the U.S. went to court to argue the relevant parts of the Canada Elections Act were unconstitutional.

In May 2014, an Ontario Superior Court justice ruled in their favour. However, the Harper government appealed on the grounds that it would be unfair to resident Canadians to allow those abroad to elect lawmakers. Ontario’s top court sided with the government. The Supreme Court of Canada is slated to hear the expats’ appeal of that decision in February.

“Canadians living abroad should be able to vote with more than their pocketbooks,” Gillian Frank, one of those who launched the constitutional challenge, told The Canadian Press.

The voting issue became a flashpoint for many expat Canadians during last year’s election that propelled Trudeau to office. He has since indicated a willingness to review the ban, and a spokesman has said the government believes “more Canadians should have the right to vote, not the opposite.”

However, nothing has changed and the Supreme Court case remains pending.

“You have some gall asking for expats’ money when you’ve done nothing to restore our vote, despite promises during the election by your members that you would rectify the situation,” Kate Tsoukalas wrote in a post.

Source: Liberal appeal for expat donations offends those still barred from voting – The Globe and Mail

What’s suddenly luring Brexit-hit Britons? Estonia’s digital citizenship for anyone | ZDNet

Interesting – residence-free business facilitation status:

The concept of Estonian e-residency emerged two years ago as a transnational digital identity, available to anyone in the world interested in administering a location-independent business online.

Applicants for e-residency are fingerprinted and background-checked by the Estonian state. Once approved, the new e-resident is issued an electronic ID card which, in combination with a four-digit pin, can be used for secure digital identification.

E-resident entrepreneurs and freelancers can open and run location-independent businesses online, apply for a bank account and conduct e-banking, get access to international payment service providers, declare taxes, sign all relevant documents and contracts remotely with the same legal status as handwritten ones, and gain easier access to EU markets.

At the same time e-residency does not confer citizenship, tax residency, residence or right of entry to Estonia or to the EU.

In the beginning of August, Estonian e-residency had altogether 12,480 applicants, with 568, or a little less than five percent from the UK.

Korjus believes that the interest will grow in time, especially when the Brexit processes approach their final stages.

 With crowds of new e-citizens and hundreds of new companies, Estonia’s e-residency project has exceeded expectations in its first year.

“It all depends on what specific decisions and agreements are made as to the results of the referendum. Today there are still a lot of loose ends. We believe that e-residency will become the main tool for the British to continue their businesses in the EU. It’s wise for an international company to keep at least one body in the EU, and Estonian e-residency is the cheapest and most convenient way to do it,” he says.

Source: What’s suddenly luring Brexit-hit Britons? Estonia’s digital citizenship for anyone | ZDNet

Will investors shell out cash for Egyptian citizenship?

The mark of desperation when a country decides to sell its citizenship:

The Egyptian government has recently proposed a draft law to amend the country’s nationality law. It would give investors the right to apply for citizenship after living and investing in Egypt for five years. The bill has caused controversy and dispute both within parliament and among the public. While some Egyptians argue it will encourage investment and help the country’s financial recovery, others maintain that nationality is not something that should be sold.

The draft law was submitted to the Cabinet by Egyptian economist Sameh Sidqi earlier this month. It would amend Presidential Decree No. 89 of 1960 on Entry, Residence and Exit of Foreigners and Law No. 26 of 1975 Concerning Egyptian Nationality. The government announced Aug. 2 that it was being discussed in the Egyptian State Council.

Speaking to Al-Monitor, Sidqi said, “The bill grants Egyptian nationality to foreigners who deposit $500,000 [in foreign currency] in an Egyptian bank. If nationality is granted, the sum may not be refunded. The foreigner shall obtain nationality within five years, but if the application is rejected, the sum may be retrieved.”

He said that approving this bill “requires amending the clause related to nationality in the Egyptian Constitution, as well as another clause of the Investment Law, so that any investor who deposits the required sum may be granted Egyptian nationality if he or she meets the conditions set by the Cabinet.”

Sidqi argued that more than 5 million expatriates now reside in Egypt, and they include Iraqis, Syrians and Libyans, in addition to 4 million Sudanese living in Egypt since the era of Sudanese President Gaafar Nimeiri. Like Egyptians, these expatriates benefit from subsidies on oil, electricity, bread and other food supplies.

“Such legislation is applied in many countries that encourage foreign investment, including the United States and Canada,” Sidqi added, indicating that he had previously presented this proposal to the Dubai government when working as an economic adviser during the international financial crisis a few years ago. Although the proposal was initially approved, he said, the number of expatriates that would be granted Emirati nationality exceeded the Emirate’s native population, leading the Dubai government to reject the proposal.

Sidqi pointed out that at least 100,000 of the foreigners living in Egypt with no criminal records wish to obtain Egyptian citizenship. This means that the state could potentially benefit from billions of dollars without recourse to loans subject to terms from the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

Egypt is currently negotiating a $5 billion loan with the IMF in order to cover growing budget deficits as a result of the decline in tourism and tourism revenues.

Sidqi further said that his proposal has already been approved by the Cabinet and has now been submitted to the State Council and parliament for ratification.

According to Sidqi, the opposition claims that the bill would grant citizenship to anybody in return for money. However, this not the case, he argued, as competent authorities shall conduct background checks on all applicants, including their relatives up to a fourth-degree kinship.

Sidqi added that to obtain Egyptian nationality, applicants must submit a certified list of all the countries they traveled to in the past 10 years, noting that the Egyptian government reserves the right to withdraw citizenship, without prior notice, from any applicant convicted of a crime against honor, spying for a foreign country against Egypt or if the applicant obtained another citizenship.

Source: Will investors shell out cash for Egyptian citizenship?

Collacott: Birth citizenship makes no sense

Martin is silent on the previous government’s effort to abolish birthright citizenship, which failed due to provincial opposition as the numbers were too small to justify the cost of such a major change to vital statistics and other identity systems. See my earlier What happened to Kenney’s cracking down on birth tourism? Feds couldn’t do it alone | hilltimes.com.

Again, a more practical and realizable measure is to collect better and regular data, and regulate or ban birthright citizenship consulting services:

Acquisition of citizenship simply by virtue of having been born on the soil of a country, in fact, makes such little sense that all developed nations where it has been available except Canada and the United States have abolished it in recent years.

The U.S. had originally put it in place after the Civil War, when some southern states tried to deny former slaves the right to become American citizens. Today, the issue of whether to continue with birth citizenship revolves largely around the question of what to do with the millions of illegal migrants and their children who were born in the U.S. and therefore have an automatic right to citizenship. In general, the Democratic Party wants to keep birth citizenship in place since those who benefit from it can be expected to vote for that party when they are old enough to do so. In the circumstances, this has made it difficult to abolish despite the fact that it goes against the interests of Americans in general.

 On our side of the border, a petition has been launched by Richmond resident Kerry Starchuk to do away with birth citizenship and therefore birth tourism. The petition is on the Parliamentary website under the sponsorship of MP Alice Wong. While sponsorship does not necessarily mean that the MP agrees with the petition, it can be assumed that he or she considers it to be a legitimate subject for discussion. To date more than 6,700 people have signed it — more than 13 times the number required for it to be tabled before the House of Commons.

The federal government’s reaction to attempts to abolish birth citizenship has been puzzling to say the least.

Earlier this month, federal government spokespeople made it clear that their main concern with birth tourists was that they pay their hospital bills — which in some cases involve deposits that are three times what the hospital requires from local residents. Curiously, however, the spokespeople made no mention of the fact that when the newborns get older they will be able to use their citizenship to incur substantial costs on Canadian taxpayers because of the benefits they will be eligible to claim.

One of the issues raised in relation to doing away with birth citizenship is that it would be costly to do so. The extent of such costs, however, is open to debate and must be weighed against those incurred when the birth citizenship babies get older.

What is clear is that birth citizenship works against the interests of Canadians in general and that a good number are now aware of this and want it done away with.

Whether the federal government is prepared to act accordingly remains to be seen.

Source: Opinion: Birth citizenship makes no sense | Vancouver Sun

Germany: Who′s afraid of dual citizenship? | Opinion | DW.COM

While in my opinion the article focuses too much on identify aspects of dual citizenship while ignoring the practical aspects that require many to retain their old citizenship in order to be able to easily visit their country of origin, it gives a flavour of German debates:

The issue of dual citizenship is dividing opinion in Germany. The arguments against it are old fashioned to say the least: Citizens cannot “serve two masters,” and the conflict of allegiance for those who possess two passports is emphasized. Such arguments are designed to influence mood and create fear: Opponents of dual citizenship often talk of the threat of a “fifth column” for despots and autocrats, and call into question the democratic will and capacity of those with two passports. The message is clear: Danger is on the way!

But the argument is not aimed at Trump supporters among American-Germans, Le Pen supporters among French-Germans, Kaczynski fans among the 690,000 Polish-Germans, nor those among the 570,000 Russian-Germans that are sympathetic to Vladimir Putin. No, the problem is with those among the 530,000 Turkish-German dual citizens in Germany that support Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Erdogan is currently Germany’s favorite bogeyman, the one person that threatens European democracy and that we should all be afraid of. And we should also fear his fifth column, the Turkish-Germans living here and just waiting for Ankara to give them the signal to mobilize.

Enemies of democracy

 However: Doing away with dual citizenship will not solve any of the real or perceived problems that its opponents envision. Dual citizenship is anchored in current EU law. Thus, EU citizens cannot be deprived of it. Therefore Germans have to tolerate the Orban supporters among Hungarian-Germans as well as the nostalgic right-wing extremist Ustashe fans among Croatian-Germans.

Apparently, the real issue only has to do with the Turks. In that case it would serve us well to recall a few facts: According to the 2011 federal census, about 4.3 million people in Germany had citizenship in a second country in addition to being German passport holders. Of those, some 500,000 were Turks. In comparison: 1.5 million Turkish people were living in Germany without German passports, and 800,000 people of Turkish origin had only a German passport. So, on the whole, less than 20 percent of all Turks in Germany have dual citizenship. So where exactly does the threat to German democracy lie?

This most recent discussion on dual citizenship flared up at a pro-Erdogan demonstration two weekends ago in Cologne. Some 30,000 to 40,000 people demonstrated at the event – which figures out to about six or seven percent of all Turkish-German dual citizens, or 1.5 percent of all persons of Turkish descent living in Germany. Even if every single person at the event were an avowed enemy of democracy – it would still be no greater a number than all opinion polls and election results tend to register among ethnic Germans with no immigrant background.

Not a threat – an enrichment

The favorite argument of dual citizenship opponents is the equation: two passports = dual allegiance. That has little to do with reality. Multi-faceted identity is a matter of fact for millions of people with migrant backgrounds living in Germany. It is a matter of different languages, different cultures and different answers to the question: Where do I feel comfortable, where am I at home? Dual citizenship is a possible answer, and a clear sign of belonging to two different worlds. The belief that someone who is forced to forfeit a passport will also forfeit his or her loyalty is a fallacy. It would only lead to bitterness, hypocrisy and estrangement. For loyalty is like love: You can force someone to have sex, but you cannot force them to love you!

Of course democracy must have the possibility to defend itself against its enemies. But modern democracies can only survive and flourish as open societies. One expression of this openness is to allow citizens to live their identities as they feel them – even if that means they need two passports to do so.

Source: Opinion: Who′s afraid of dual citizenship? | Opinion | DW.COM | 09.08.2016