Germany mulls stripping citizenship in terror crackdown – France 24

To watch:

Germany’s interior minister has proposed tough new security measures including deporting foreigners and revoking citizenship after two attacks claimed by the Islamic state group.

At a press conference on Thursday Interior Minister Thomas de Maizière outlined plans to beef up federal security forces, make the promotion of terrorism a crime and strip German citizenship from dual nationals who fight for foreign militias.

After terrorist attacks on German soil this year, two of them by migrants, the minister has been under intense pressure from both the political right, who want fewer Muslim migrants, and the left, who’ve been calling for a stronger police presence.

“A lot of people … are worried about further attacks. That is understandable,” De Maizière told reporters. “No one can guarantee absolute security, but we must do what is possible.”

‘Politically reasonable’

Revoking German citizenship would go some way towards dealing with the estimated 820 Germans fighting in Syria and Iraq who may pose a threat on their return to Germany.

It’s nonetheless considered a controversial proposal with Green lawmaker Volker Beck among those condemning it as “desperate activism”.

Social Democrats (SPD) chief Sigmar Gabriel said his party — the government’s junior coalition partner — are not open to just “any populist quick fix”, but that they are “ready for discussions on anything that can contribute to reinforcing security”.

And the security package has yet to be approved by the country’s right-left coalition and German parliament.

Deportations

Beyond the issue of homegrown terrorism, the minister is proposing to make it easier to deport terror suspects and detain foreigners who have committed crimes or are a public security risk.

A tightening of German and European Union weapons laws is also on the cards.

De Maizière said he was limiting himself to policies that could be implemented quickly, and that he considered “politically reasonable”.

Source: Germany mulls stripping citizenship in terror crackdown – France 24

Is ‘birth tourism’ a problem in Canada? Doctors on frontline of debate

All the available evidence shows that the numbers are extremely small, both in absolute terms and in relation to the overall number of births in Canada.

IRCC, if it is not already doing so, should be systematically collect better quality data, working with provincial health ministries, rather than the piece meal data that we have now.

Despite the small numbers, there is a need to regulate or prohibit birth tourism consultancy services to avoid a further increase in the numbers. The CMA might also wish to take a more pro-active role.

Changing birthright citizenship, as the previous government learned, is not feasible without provincial buy-in given the various linkages between provincial vital statistics agencies and healthcare systems and any measure to restrict birthright citizenship:

Birth tourism appears to be on the rise in some parts of Canada, raising questions for doctors and hospitals, as well as debate about Canada’s practice of offering instant citizenship to infants born in the country.

“We sense there’s a growing demand in birth tourism from several countries, especially considering the instability in today’s world,” Alex Davidson, managing partner of the Toronto-based LP Group, told CTV News. “There are more and more people coming in and approaching us.”

Davidson said he typically sees two types of clients. Some are wealthy individuals, often from European countries, who want a “second passport” for their children and are able to pay anywhere between $10,000 and $20,000 to deliver a baby in Canada.

Davidson said some of his recent clients have included U.K. residents worried about the post-Brexit future once their country leaves the European Union.

Others are people from poor, crime-ridden countries who want to provide security for their children, and hope that their Canadian babies can provide an anchor in the country for the rest of the family.

“Canada has been perceived — well, it is — as a safe harbour on this planet,” Davidson said.

He said LP Group helps birth tourism clients find temporary accommodations in the country and the firm also has a list of Canadian doctors who are willing to see foreign patients.

“Elena” is a pregnant woman from Russia now awaiting to give birth in Toronto. She spoke to CTV News on condition of anonymity.

“My baby will get Canadian citizenship upon delivery and also with a Canadian passport he will get some benefits like free school and free healthcare,” she said. “It is good for the baby I think because the baby gets to choose if he wants to live in Russia, as in my case, or in Canada.”

At a recent Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada conference, Dr. Fiona Mattatall an obstetrician in Calgary, presented figures that show an increase in the number of overseas patients who have given birth in Calgary hospitals.

She said there are now about 10 “passport babies” born each month in the city’s hospitals. Her survey also found many doctors are uncomfortable with the practice.

While many overseas patients pay to have their babies delivered in Canada, some do not, leaving hospitals on the hook for the costs.

Dr. Saul Pytka, a Calgary anesthesiologist, said he’s alarmed by the issue.

“I am frustrated — and I have to be honest, angered — by the fact that as a society we are being abused. I think we are a very generous society,” he said.

Under the Citizenship Act, all babies born on Canadian soil are automatically granted citizenship, except for children of foreign diplomats.

Canada and the United States are the only G7 countries that have birthright citizenship. Other countries like France, Germany and Australia have revoked automatic citizenship unless at least one of the parents is a national citizen.

Birth tourism is not illegal in Canada. There is no official federal data on “birth tourism,” and some say the numbers are still small. According to Statistics Canada figures from 2012, the most recent year for which numbers are available, there were only 699 babies born in Canada to foreign mothers out of more than 382,000 births across the country.

But one immigration consultant says there has “certainly” been an increase in birth tourism in Canada over the past few years with sites advertising companies that assist in getting pregnant women to Canada.

“The best gift you can give your child is a Canadian passport” says one website.

A potentially costly overhaul

In 2014, immigration officials urged the Conservative government to restrict granting citizenship by birth on Canadian soil to children with at least one parent who is a citizen or permanent resident.

But the report cited limited data and possible increased costs to provinces and territories as potential barriers to legislation reform.

Will Tao, a Vancouver-based immigration lawyer, told CTV News Channel last week that overhauling birthright citizenship rules could be extremely costly for Ottawa.

“Let’s actually look at what are the motivating factors, what are the organizations that are working abroad, perhaps without reference to Canadian law, and promoting individuals to come here,” Tao said.

Online searches turn up dozens of organizations and groups in various countries that offer advice and help facilitate travel for women who want to give birth in Canada.

“Perhaps it is not illegal right now, but perhaps it needs to be curbed or organizations that are running the services need to be stopped,” Tao said.

He also said that panic over birth tourism, especially in British Columbia, is being fuelled by a “general misunderstanding of who a foreign national is.”

Many foreign nationals have study or work permits, “and in my mind these individuals are all on the pathway to permanent residency,” Tao said.

A petition that seeks to eliminate automatic citizenship for babies born to foreign nationals in Canada is adding fire to the debate.

Kerry Starchuk, a Richmond, B.C., woman, is calling on the federal government to enact legislation that will require at least one parent to be a Canadian citizen or permanent resident in order for a baby born on Canadian soil to be granted automatic citizenship.

The petition, sponsored by Conservative MP Alice Wong, has garnered more than 6,700 signatures since June 16 and will eventually be introduced in the House of Commons.

Starchuk said she started the petition because she suspects a house next door to hers serves as a motel for pregnant foreigners who come to Canada to secure birthright citizenships for their babies.

Source: Is ‘birth tourism’ a problem in Canada? Doctors on frontline of debate | CTV News

In a related story, the Canadian Medical Protective Association highlights potential medical and liability issues:

The Canadian Medical Protective Association is cautioning doctors about providing medical services to birth tourists coming here to have babies in order to acquire Canadian citizenship for their newborns.

“Canadian physicians who provide care to non-residents are at increased risk of medical-legal difficulties arising outside of Canada,” says a notice from the CMPA. “The Association is not structured to assist when medical-legal actions are instigated by non-residents outside of Canada.”

The CMPA is the legal defence organization for doctors; it provides and pays lawyers and settlements when doctors are sued for malpractice by Canadian patients. The new bulletin to physicians regarding medical tourism is relevant and timely, given a local trend where an ever-increasing number of non-residents (from 18 in 2010 to 339 last year) are having their babies, mostly at Richmond Hospital. The Vancouver Sun and The Province have reported that the provincial government is now aware of more than two dozen “birth houses” where pregnant women stay prior to, and after, the births of their babies, before returning to China.

Birth tourism brokers marketing their services show photos of Lower Mainland hospitals and lists of Mandarin speaking doctors to deliver babies.

The CMPA statement — titled “Emerging trends and medical-legal risks in medical tourism” — warns that while there are still more Canadians travelling abroad for medical treatment than foreign visitors coming here, there are risks to think about for both patient groups. Doctors should ensure foreign patients sign agreements promising not to sue outside of Canada and they should also make sure they fully document discussions with non-residents and the care provided to them.

 The CMPA said it cannot share information about the number of doctors sued by birth tourists. But it is attuned to the broader trend of medical tourism.

“We have published guidance for physicians on the medical-legal risks associated with medical tourism and the steps they can take to mitigate risks associated with this practice,” said Dr. Doug Bell, a managing director at CMPA.

Source: Canadian birth tourism doctors cautioned on risk of liability | Vancouver Sun

Nothing illegal about birth tourism at B.C. hospitals

More on birth tourism – numbers cited still small in relation to overall live births (about 44,000 in British Columbia 2014/15 ) but the local impact on the Richmond Hospital and residents being turned away should raise some concerns (according to the reporter, Pamela Fayerman, Richmond has the highest numbers of such births).

The relatively small numbers involved do not support the elimination of birthright citizenship but it is valid to question whether governments should regulate or prohibit birth tourism agencies or brokers.

For the overall numbers, see my earlier piece, What happened to Kenney’s cracking down on birth tourism? Feds couldn’t do it alone | hilltimes.com:

Federal authorities say foreign nationals coming to Vancouver to have babies aren’t breaking any laws as long as they can show they have money to pay for their medical care.

Birth tourism is becoming increasingly popular, especially in Richmond, where non-resident births are steadily rising, from just 18 in 2010 to 339 in the past fiscal year. Women primarily from China are seeking labour and delivery services at Richmond Hospital. Canada Border Services spokeswoman Sarah Lawley-Wakelin said pregnancy is “not a reason in itself to not admit a tourist.

“But if a foreigner is seeking entry to Canada for the express purpose of undergoing medical treatment and can’t show they have the money to pay for it, then that could be deemed by a CBSA officer as a potential excessive demand on health service, thus making that individual inadmissible.”

Chinese nationals must have a temporary (tourist/visitor) resident visa (TRV) to enter Canada and must state the purpose of travelling to Canada, said Nancy Caron, spokeswoman for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC).

“People should always be honest about the purpose of their visit when applying to come to Canada. It is a serious crime to lie or to provide false information or documents when dealing with (IRCC). Lying on an application or during in an interview with an IRCC officer is fraud and it is a crime,” Caron said.

 Asked if there have been any investigations, charges or convictions against foreigners who didn’t admit they were coming to Canada to have a baby, she said:

“Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada isn’t aware of any investigations into foreigners who didn’t admit they were entering Canada solely for the purpose of giving birth to a baby.”

Vancouver immigration lawyer Steven Meurrens said the increasing popularity of birth tourism would appear to be so mothers can obtain Canadian citizenship, passports, birth certificates and other documents for their newborns. “You’ve got women who do it to help their child and those who think it will give them a leg up on their own immigration efforts. So these are so-called anchor babies, yes.”

Since 1947, the Citizenship Act has guaranteed Canadian citizenship for those born here, Meurrens said, and although the previous Conservative government under Stephen Harper explored changes to the Act, nothing was done.

Meurrens said while birth tourism may “leave a bad taste in some people’s mouths” Canada has forever been a “settler society” and birth on soil citizenship is “central to our laws.”

“Where the real problems arise is when people skip out on their medical bills,” he said.

Freedom of information documents supplied to Postmedia by the B.C. government show that half of non-resident bills related to births are paid. Meurrens said since there are agencies or birth tourism brokers running birth houses — 26 at last count that the government is aware of — it may be possible for authorities to collect funds from them.

Meanwhile, more than a dozen pregnant Richmond residents were turned away from their local hospital in the past 18 months because it was too full to accommodate them.

Source: Nothing illegal about birth tourism at B.C. hospitals | Vancouver Sun

New gender-neutral Ontario health cards make it harder to get a passport

Inexcusable lack of communication and due diligence by the Ontario government. While I know that OHIP cards are not intended for identification purposes, the reality suggests otherwise.

Systems are linked and it is the responsibility of officials to make the necessary checks:

Ontario’s decision to issue gender-neutral health cards is making it more difficult for some of the province’s residents to get a passport, since the federal government wasn’t consulted on the switch.

….The province announced in June that it will start issuing health cards that no longer display information about a person’s gender on the front of the card.

Changes made to be fair and equitable, province says

Beginning in early 2017, drivers will also have the option on their licences to select X, instead of an M for male or F for female.

The province’s Liberal government said it is making the changes “to ensure the fair, ethical and equitable treatment of people with trans and non-binary gender identity.”

Bestard maintains this is a positive step for non-binary people, and one that she has absolutely no problem with. “I do understand the nuances of the LGBTQ community, and the challenges they face,” she said.

The issue, she says, is the headache that has been created by the two levels of government not working together.

“The lack of communication is quite surprising,” she said.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada spokesperson Lindsay Wemp told CBC News that “IRCC was not consulted as part of this initiative from the government of Ontario.”

Christine Burke, spokesperson for Ontario’s Ministry of Government and Consumer Services, says ServiceOntario has been working with the federal government to address this situation.

“No consultations took place with the federal government prior to the change, as we were unaware that the photo health card was being used and accepted as an identity document by Passport Canada,” she said in an email.

Kwok Wong, spokesperson for the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario, told CBC News that the ability to just mark an X for gender on an Ontario licence complies with the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standards for machine-readable official travel documents.

“In various other countries, X is used in place of M or F when gender is not specified,” he said in an email.

“Ministry of Transportation officials discussed this proposal with the federal government counterparts including Passport Canada and Canada Border Service Agency.”

It appears that a licence marked with an X would not be able to be used to obtain a passport, as proof of gender is still one of the requirements.

Source: New gender-neutral Ontario health cards make it harder to get a passport – Hamilton – CBC News

Shaping the future of Canada’s immigration system

A number of opinions on the issues set out in the current immigration consultations (see earlier Collacott: Immigration ‘conversation” is public relations exerciseIRCC Discussion guide on immigration: What about citizenship?).

In addition to my comments below, views of Debbie Douglas (faster processing of family reunification), Harald Bauder (more funding for settlement, pathways from temporary to permanent residency), Jeff Reitz (greater efforts on employment) and the Conference Board (increased immigration levels, spread across the country):

Having inherited an immigration system plagued with backlogs and heavy-handed enforcement, the Liberal government says it’s keen to hear what you think needs to be done about Canada’s immigration future.

Since the beginning of the summer, Immigration Minister John McCallum and his parliamentary secretary, Arif Virani, have held more than two dozen roundtable meetings across Canada with settlement services organizations, businesses and community groups to get their thoughts.

Although the meetings are by invitation only — more are coming in August — the public can submit ideas by email to the minister. Since early July, more than 2,500 online submissions have been received. Submissions end Aug. 5.

“Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada will be reviewing the feedback from Canadians to help guide decisions on how many people we will welcome in the coming years and the future of immigration in Canada,” said a department spokesperson.

While the final report won’t be ready till at least the fall, the Star interviewed a group of immigration experts to weigh in on the national dialogue by identifying gaps in the system and offering solutions.

Meaningful and accessible citizenship:

Andrew Griffith, a former director general at the immigration department, said Canada largely has its immigration policies and programs right, but an independent review by a royal commission would be helpful.

He said the consultation questions are biased towards economic class immigrants and miss out on important areas such as citizenship.

“Most immigrants choose to become citizens as part of their integration into Canadian society. If we believe in immigration integration, we should support political integration, in addition to economic, social and cultural,” said Griffith.

“The main instrument for doing so is citizenship, given that allows for full participation in the political process.”

Canada’s naturalization rate has been declining, from the peak of 93.3 per cent for immigrants who came before 1971, to just 36.7 per cent among those who arrived between 2006 and 2007.

Griffith said Ottawa must set targets for naturalization as a benchmark, to assess whether its policies strike the right balance in making citizenship accessible and meaningful.

Officials must also regularly review citizenship requirements to ensure that different ethnic groups and immigration classes (economic, family and refugees) have comparable outcomes. Reducing the hefty application fee from the current $530 would make citizenship more financially accessible.

Source: Shaping the future of Canada’s immigration system | Toronto Star

The Hill Times has the political reaction to the (trial balloon?) of differential immigration fees:

The federal government is seeking public feedback on letting some immigration applicants pay more for faster processing.

That idea is one of many put forward in an online consultation document the government is asking members of the public to fill out as it gears up for an overhaul of the immigration processing system.

The NDP’s immigration critic and a pair of Liberal and NDP MPs say bringing in a two-tiered Canadian immigration system is out of the question.

“I wouldn’t support it,” said NDP immigration critic Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, B.C.). “By doing that, effectively you’re saying you can buy your way into the system and bypass everybody.”

“They’re absolutely creating a two-tiered system if that were to proceed,” she said.

However, Liberal MP Peter Fonseca (Mississauga East-Cooksville, Ont.) and a Toronto immigration lawyer say such a system could help to improve immigration processing.

The issue is one close to MPs’ hearts as much of their constituency work is tied up in helping constituents with immigration questions, including application processing.

Many MPs have two staffers in their riding offices and at least one attends to constituents’ immigration needs. The most common complaints of constituents about immigration issues are related to long delays in the processing times of applications for family reunification, refugees, spousal sponsorship, temporary foreign workers, visitor visas, and Canadian citizenship applications.

Immigration reform

Why Birthright Citizenship Is Good For America

Alex Nowrasteh of the Cato Institute makes the case for birthright citizenship (I would argue that integration is a more accurate term than assimilation):

The U.S. rule of birthright citizenship offers a stark contrast to policies pursued in Germany and Japan, where the children of immigrants are either denied citizenship or face a much harder path toward obtaining it.

The German guest-worker program of the 1950s through the 1970s admitted large numbers of Turks, Tunisians, Portuguese, and others to work in their growing economy. Originally, the Germans had no intention of letting the workers and their families stay permanently, but many, especially the Turks, did stay. Their German-born children were not allowed to become citizens. The same was true in Japan, where the Korean minority, called zainichi, was barred from citizenship for generations despite being born in Japan.

In both countries, the results were tragic. The lack of birthright citizenship created a legal underclass of resentful and displaced young people who were officially discriminated against in the government-run education system and had tenuous allegiance to the country in which they were born. After four generations in Japan, ethnic Koreans still self-identify as foreign. In both countries, these noncitizen youths are more prone to crime and extreme political ideologies like Islamism or communism.

Their failure to naturalize the Turks contrasts with Germany’s Aussiedler system that “repatriated” ethnic Germans and their families living in the territory of the Soviet Union, immediately granting them citizenship by virtue of their blood connection to Germany. Aussliedler inflows peaked in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when approximately 2.2 million ancestral Germans were admitted and given citizenship. Germany partly rectified its system in 1999, extending citizenship to Turks and creating some legal categories that can gain citizenship through birthright.

Equality Breeds Contentment

Youths born to noncitizen immigrants in countries without birthright citizenship have little legal stake in the nations they were born in but also have no place to go. Many might gain citizenship through the ethnicity of their parents in Korea or Turkey, but with no connections to those nations, citizenship there is meaningless.

In the United States, by contrast, children of immigrants are legally on the same playing field as children born to American citizens. Both can serve in the military, purchase firearms, serve on juries, and be treated the same by the legal system. That is one reason why 89 percent of second-generation Hispanics and 96 percent of third-generation Hispanics have described themselves as American only. “Hispanic-American” or “Mexican-American” is still popular among some after several generations, just as “Italian-American” still survives, but these Americans do not view themselves as foreigners.

The likelihood of amending the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause is small, but that amendment should be defended because of how well it has aided immigrant assimilation in the United States. Remembering the Fourteenth Amendment as a correction to previous racist policies and court decisions is essential, but that history should not blind us to its pro-assimilation impact on the descendants of America’s immigrants.

Source: Why Birthright Citizenship Is Good For America

Swiss to revoke citizenship of dual-national jihadists – SWI swissinfo.ch

The criteria range from relatively specific to extremely broad. The one about “insulting” another state is particularly egregious as well as the lack of due process:

The issue has been debated for a long time. The State Secretariat for Migration (SEM) is in theory already able to denaturalise dual nationals, based on the 1952 law on the acquisition and loss of Swiss citizenship.

This law is vague, however, stating that the SEM can revoke – with consent of the canton of origin – the citizenship of a person holding dual nationality if his or her conduct is “seriously detrimental to the interests or the reputation of Switzerland”. This has never occurred.

On June 17, the cabinet agreed the regulation, which will enter into force in January 2018. Among other things, it listed offences that could result in someone being stripped of their Swiss citizenship.

These include a serious crime being committed in connection with terrorist activities, violent extremism or organised crime. Also mentioned are genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, violations of the Geneva Convention and other crimes that could apply to Islamic State fighters and jihadists.

Since 2001, 77 people have left Switzerland to fight in conflict areas, mostly Syria and Iraq, according to figures for July from the Federal Intelligence Service. Of these, 29 had Swiss citizenship – and of those 17 had dual nationality.

Criteria

Dual citizens could also lose their Swiss passport if they “endanger in the long term Switzerland’s good relations with another state by insulting that state”.

In addition, the regulation includes the main offences that were written into the 1952 law with Nazis in mind: attacks upon Swiss independence, banned political intelligence and propaganda that could harm the country.

The regulation will apply only to dual nationals, since preventing statelessness is central to basic international law and the Swiss government regularly rejects bills that violate this.

Citizenship will also be revoked only on condition of a legal conviction. That said, this requirement can be qualified: if the state in which the offence is committed is not in the position to carry out penal proceedings, citizenship can be revoked without a conviction.

Source: Swiss to revoke citizenship of dual-national jihadists – SWI swissinfo.ch

Why applying for citizenship is an anxiety filled process – and not just for applicants

I think Anne-Marie Fortier takes the arguments too far: some degree of language fluency and knowledge of the country is required, and the question is more how best to do so in a manner that is reasonable, fair and transparent.

Like all processes, particularly significant ones, some anxiety is natural and to be expected:

As we consider what post-Brexit citizenship might look like, it is crucial to understand the pervasiveness of anxiety and its integral role in shaping policy processes. Here, Anne-Marie Fortier discusses how anxiety is attached especially to English language ability for applicants, whilst also highlighting the role it plays for those on the other side of the process: the registrars checking applications  for citizenship or settlement.

Writing for The Guardian, Pakistan-born author Kamila Shamsie described how she never felt safe when she was applying for British citizenship: ‘I wasn’t prepared for the mutable nature of immigration laws, and their ability to make migrants feel perpetually insecure’. EU nationals have been feeling similar insecurities about their future status in Britain for months now. Brexit, of course, can only heighten such worries.

These experiences of insecurity resonate with that of many applicants I met in the course of my research on ‘becoming citizen’ in the UK. But those applying for citizenship or permanent resident status (known as ‘settlement’) are not alone in experiencing uncertainty and anxiety about citizenship and nationality rules: local authority registrars also at times feel anxious about the responsibilities and roles they are expected to fulfil as part of the citizenship attribution process.

Like many countries in Western Europe since the 1990s, Britain has undertaken a radical reform of its naturalisation measures. The revised process was put in place in 2004 and subsequent amendments followed in 2007, 2012, 2013, and 2016 (proposed). Today, applicants for settlement or citizenship must provide evidence of English fluency, complete the Life in the UK test (known as the ‘citizenship test’), and attend a citizenship ceremony when granted British citizenship.

The process of acquiring or attributing settlement or citizenship is riddled with anxiety in three interrelated ways: 1) anxiety is built into the process itself; 2) anxiety affects those who are involved in the process in different ways; and 3) anxiety ties into the reproduction of hierarchies of entitlement and belonging.

Building anxiety into the citizenship process

First, at the very heart of the requirement for immigrants to prove their English fluency and knowledge of ‘Life in the UK’ is an anxiety about ‘incursions’ of foreign cultures into the national domestic space. Since the summer of civil disturbances in Northern England in 2001, several British politicians have linked disaffection and risks of radicalisation among racial minority youths with ‘growing up in an English-free home’. These politicians include former Labour MP Ann Cryer in 2001, former Labour Home Secretary David Blunkett in 2002, as well as David Cameron at the start of this year.

Language and citizenship education should be available in order to provide new arrivals with crucial tools to facilitate their integration. But when language proficiency becomes politicised and conceived of as evidence of ‘integration’ rather than a tool for integration, it becomes the site where anxieties about protecting the ‘national culture’ are projected onto immigrants, residents or citizens with poorer or different English language skills. This lays the foundation for linguistic xenophobia that many have been subjected to for the past ten years, and which rose sharply in the immediate aftermath of the Brexit vote.

How anxiety affects different people within the application process

‘Khebat’ was a 27-year old Kurdish man from Iran when I met him in May 2013 in a private language school where he was taking a one-week intensive English language class to try to fulfil the language requirement for settlement. He had arrived as an asylum seeker in 2004 and was refused refugee status. He was living in Britain on a three-year leave to remain visa. As a ‘failed’ asylum seeker, Khebat knew he was ineligible for settlement. But he felt it unfair that a ‘friend’ who ‘don’t speak English’ passed the citizenship test and ‘got British’ (citizenship).

English fluency operates like a ‘checkpoint’ at the borders of citizenship rights, and Khebat internalised that logic. Khebat and many others (including applicants who are eligible for settlement) struggle to fit themselves into the policy. And a tension arises between how applicants read the requirements for English fluency and the way that the law reads them as perpetual outsiders regardless of their English fluency.

But it is not only applicants who are anxious about the securing of settlement or citizenship. Integral to citizenship processes is another anxiety about ‘fraudulent’ applicants, namely in the case of ‘sham marriages’ (or civil partnerships), which registrars have the statutory duty to report.

As part of the citizenship process, many local authority registrars (who deal with births, deaths and marriages) also provide optional services to settlement or citizenship applicants: the Settlement Checking Service (SCS) for applications for settlement on the basis of marriage (SET[M]), and the Nationality Checking Service (NCS) for citizenship applications. The role of registrars is to ensure that applications are complete and ready to be sent to UK Visa and Immigration, where decisions are made.

Conducting the SCS includes ensuring that couples have enough evidence of co-habitation. When I observed a training session about new SET(M) regulations in 2013, an extensive discussion arose about what counts as satisfactory evidence. Aside from the anxiety about getting it right, this discussion also revealed the limitations registrars see with the tools at their disposal to make a definitive assessment. The law operates in clear binary codes that separate the ‘genuine applicant’ from the ‘fraudulent applicant’ as if these were coherently and clearly gaugeable. But when faced with the much less coherent ways in which people organise their lives, registrars find themselves in the ambivalent position of exercising the state’s anxiety about ‘sham marriages’, while at the same time experiencing their own anxieties about the limits of the tools the state gives them to make that judgement and the fear of wrongly suspecting ‘genuine’ applicants.

Anxiety and hierarchies of belonging and entitlement

By attaching itself to linguistic competence, anxiety is projected onto individuals with perceived poorer or different English language skills who are judged according to a hierarchy of deservedness and belonging. Anxiety also attaches itself to bureaucratic processes that registrars find inadequate for distinguishing between ‘genuine’ and ‘fraudulent’ applicants.

Embedded in state practices such as citizenship attribution are anxieties about foreigners, such as those ‘not able to speak’ English and ‘not willing to integrate’ as David Cameron has stated, or foreigners who defraud the system. Such anxieties then recirculate among those who are variously involved in acquiring or attributing settlement or citizenship. However, the circulation of anxiety will have different effects on different subjects, as they are differently placed within the relations of power between the state and ‘foreigners’.

The pervasiveness of anxiety, and its integral role in shaping policy processes, is something then that needs to be studied in more depth; this is particularly the case as we consider what post-Brexit citizenship might look like.

Source: Why applying for citizenship is an anxiety filled process – and not just for applicants | British Politics and Policy at LSE

Citizenship for sale: Savory & Partners Press release on Dominican Republic Citizenship

Press release reprinted in its entirety:

Following Prime Minister Roosevelt Skerrit’s announcement yesterday at the annual Dominica Government Budget Address, the current pricing thresholds for its popular citizenship-by-investment program will remain unchanged for 2016, Savory & Partners, a Dubai based Dominica Government Approved Citizenship Agent can exclusively reveal.

With this recent announcement, Dominica citizenship will continue to start from $100,000 and therefore remain as the least expensive of all the Caribbean citizenship programs, in most instances as much as half the cost of its peers.

During his Budget speech the Hon. Mr Skerrit outlined that the economic citizenship program has raised more than USD $200 million dollars, surpassing all expectations.  The funds raised from the program have been a major source of funding in the recovery efforts raised after tropical storm Erika.

The cost of Dominica citizenship starts at $100,000 for a single person and $200,000 for a family of four persons.

·         $100,000 for a single applicant;

·         $175,000 for applicant and spouse ;

·         $200,000 for applicant, spouse and up to 2 children below the ages of 18 years old;

·         $50,000 for any additional dependents of the main applicants other than spouse (unchanged)

In addition, Dominica offers selected real estate investments to qualify for the its passport. The minimum investment required for real estate is $200,000, covering a family of 4.  With a minimal difference between the real estate and donation option, this incentivizes applicants to invest in Government Approved projects in the country of their second citizenship.  Already more than one 5-star hotel brand has committed to build resorts on the island with other residential and hotel resorts for investors to choose from. Some are in the form of shares, other offer freehold title deed and after a period of 5 years the real estate may be sold and the applicant retains their citizenship.

Jeremy Savory, CEO & Founder of the British family-owned Citizenship by Investment advisory firm Savory & Partners observed” This announcement is extremely positive as it keeps second citizenship accessible for a greater share of the region’s population seeking a second passport. In particular single applicants, or families with children over 25 who would be double, triple or multiple applications it is a cost-effective alternative to other citizenship by investment jurisdictions. Over the last 12 months we have successfully processed almost 100 high quality applications in anticipation of a price increase, so this extension will come as welcome relief to those who were concerned they could not submit their application before the 1st August 2016.”

At the end of 2015, Savory & Partners hosted an exclusive dinner for prominent members of the UAE business community who held Dominica citizenship where The Prime Minister The Hon. Mr Skerrit addressed guests on investment opportunities available in his country and the importance of developing reciprocal business relationships between Dominica citizens in the Middle East and around the globe. This private by invitation-only event was attended by over 60 VIP businesspersons together with His Excellency, Dr Vince Henderson, the Permanent Representative and Ambassador of the Commonwealth of Dominica to the United Nations and His Excellency Ambassador Mr Emmanuel Nanthan, Director of the Citizenship by Investment Unit (CBIU).

The Dominica Citizenship by Investment Program has been in effect since 1993, making it one of the oldest and most established second passport programs in the world. After a rigorous investigation that takes up to 3 months, successful applicants are granted the citizenship of the Commonwealth of Dominica Citizenship. The passport allows visa free travel to over 127 countries including the United Kingdom & Schengen. A member of the British Commonwealth, Dominicapassport holders may stay for up to 6 months in the UK and 3 months in European countries. The passport also provides investors with increased business and banking opportunities, significant tax advantages and family security and safety. The Government of Dominica accepts applications only from Government Approved Agents such as Savory & Partners in Dubai.

Savory & Partners is a British family-owned company with roots reaching back as far as 1794 when the Savory family were the pharmacists to the British Royal Family. The pharmacy division of the family business closed and is now part of the Melbourne University Medical University in Australia. However today the company has established itself as a leading second citizenship firm in the Middle East with Authorized Agent status granted by the Governments of DominicaGrenada, and Antigua and Barbuda. Savory & Partners are trusted by governments around the world to source individuals of the highest caliber. By providing the highest level of service through experience, knowledge and trust, a successful application is guaranteed.

Source: Savory & Partners: Cost of Second Citizenship to Remain Unchanged

Why Conservative MP Deepak Obhrai thinks he can lead the party back

One of the few Conservatives to have been more open about his criticism of their government’s use of identity politics in the past election:

Though he likes to point out the fact, Mr. Obhrai insists he’s not running for leader simply “because I am the longest serving Conservative member of Parliament,” having been first elected as a Reformer in 1997.

He’s running because he says he worked hard to open up the party – particularly to new Canadians and immigrants, much like himself.

And he blames the Conservatives’ 2015 election campaign with isolating those very groups it should have embraced.

“Many people felt excluded from this party,” he says. “I felt it was very necessary that I put my efforts back.”

Mr. Obhrai points to his party’s positions on the niqab, notably when former prime minister Stephen Harper said the Conservatives would look at banning public servants from wearing them, and the “barbaric cultural practices” tip line as proposals that lead to their election loss last October.

“Nobody bothered asking me whether it was right or wrong. I would have told them absolutely there and then it was wrong,” he says.

He is also highly critical of the Conservatives’ Bill C-24, which gave the government the power to revoke Canadian citizenship from dual citizens convicted of terrorism. Mr. Obhrai supported the bill’s advancement to committee, but abstained from a final vote. The Liberals have since introduced their own bill to repeal this provision.

“That turned out to be an advantage for the Liberals to attack us,” he says.

Source: Why Conservative MP Deepak Obhrai thinks he can lead the party back – The Globe and Mail