Conservatives are not bigots | Malcolm 

Candice Malcolm, former press secretary to Jason Kenney, and author of Losing True North: Justin Trudeau’s Assault on Canadian Citizenship, appears to remain in denial mode regarding Conservative identity politics and messaging (unlike many members at the recent convention):

If anyone looks at such policies and argues that Conservatives were targeting all Muslims, the problem isn’t the policies.

It’s their perception of them.Conservatives clearly differentiated between terrorists and peaceful Muslims.

Source: Conservatives are not bigots | Malcolm | Columnists | Opinion | Toronto Sun

Why Americans are giving up citizenship in record numbers – The Washington Post

Latest data:

And indeed, government statistics show record numbers of people are renouncing their U.S. citizenship. But it’s not Trump that has persuaded them to go. It’s taxes.

The IRS publishes the names of each American who gives up his or her citizenship. The list comes out every three months, and international tax lawyer Andrew Mitchel has tallied them up. In the first quarter of this year, 1,158 people expatriated — more than 10 times the number in the first quarter of 2008, when Mitchel began his count. Last year, a record 4,279 people renounced their citizenship.

Expatriations have grown steadily since 2008 but began to spike in 2013. That timing undermines the theory that Trump is responsible. (Back then, he was busy suing talk-show host and comedian Bill Maher for calling him the spawn of an orangutan.) But the increase dovetails with the implementation of new federal reporting requirements and penalties for assets held overseas by U.S. citizens.

The rules were passed back in 2010 as part of legislation intended to encourage businesses to hire more employees and jump-start the nation’s economic recovery. Attached to the law was a provision called the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) that was supposed to “detect, deter and discourage” tax evasion through offshore bank accounts.

Source: Why Americans are giving up citizenship in record numbers – The Washington Post

Will Italy finally bring its #citizenship laws into the 21st century?

Not an easy political debate to have in the current mass migrant context:

Fred Kuwornu, an Italian-Ghanaian director, has been waiting for years for this moment. In 2011, he made a documentary called 18 IUS SOLI. Screened at film festivals across the world, including Venice, it called for Italian citizenship to be made available to people born in Italy to foreign parents.

Now it’s more than cinema; the Italian Senate is debating this very possibility.

That’s if politics and the migrant crisis don’t get in the way.

<p>Hundreds of thousands of people born in Italy to non-Italian parents could soon be eligible for citizenship if changes to the country's nationality laws are passed.</p>
Hundreds of thousands of people born in Italy to non-Italian parents could soon be eligible for citizenship if changes to the country’s nationality laws are passed.(www.ilprimatonazionale.it)

“The issue is very complex. I believe that today it is not possible to be just a citizen of the country your parents are from or where you were born,” Kuwornu tells Equal Times.

Currently, Italian citizenship is largely based on jus sanguinis which relates to having Italian ancestry.

According to the current law, No.91 of 1992, children born in Italy to non-Italian parents must apply for Italian nationality between their 18th and 19th birthdays. They can only apply if they have lived in Italy continuously for their whole life. Even in a country notorious for its lengthy bureaucratic practices, the process is particularly long and complicated.

The new ‘tempered’ law would base citizenship on the principle of jus soli (or the right to citizenship based on one’s place of birth) or on cultural participation (at least five years of education after the age of 12 in Italy) – jus culturae.

In accordance with jus soli, children born in Italy to non-EU citizens (one of whom has to have a resident’s permit) will be eligible for Italian citizenship.

A November 2015 report from the Ministry of Public Education revealed that there are more than 805,000 young people of school age born in Italy to foreign parents, although it is not clear whether all of these students would be eligible for citizenship under the new rules.

“The tempered jus soli seemed to be the best compromise. I do, however, hope that this law will be approved quickly,” says Kuwornu, whose documentary promoted legislative change through community screenings, discussions and cultural initiatives.

It may yet be some time before the law is passed, however. The Chamber of Deputies approved it on 13 October 2015 with 310 votes in favour, 66 votes against and 83 abstentions, but it still awaits a vote in the Senate, where lawmakers held a hearing on the subject on 30 March 2016.

Anti-immigrant sentiment

What complicates the process are elections – for the mayor of Rome on 5 June and other administrative balloting – amidst a certain amount of hostility towards the new law.

Against the backdrop of the migrant crisis, populist politicians across Europe have helped to stir anti-immigrant sentiment. In Italy, the Lega Nord (Northern League) has drawn thousands of protesters in their demonstrations against immigration.

Supporters fear that failure to passed the jus soli law now could add years of second-class citizenship for many second-generation immigrant youth.

The new law has also been criticised by pro-immigration groups that see it as less-inclusive compared to the ambitious 2011 campaign ‘I’m Italy too’ (L’ Italia sono Anch’ io), supported by many Italian associations.

Source: Will Italy finally bring its citizenship laws into the 21st century? – Equal Times

How the Big Red Machine became the big data machine: Delacourt

As someone who likes playing with and analyzing data, found Delacourt’s recounting of how the Liberals became the most data savvy political party interesting:

The Console, with its maps and myriad graphs and numbers, was the most vivid evidence of how far the Liberal party had come in its bid to play catch-up in the data war with its Conservative and NDP rivals. Call it Trudeau 2.0. Just as the old Rainmaker Keith Davey brought science to the party of Trudeau’s father in the 1960s and 1970s, the next generation of Trudeau Liberalism would get seized with data, science and evidence in a big way, too.

And in the grand tradition of Davey, Allan Gregg and all the other political pollsters and marketers who went before them, this new squad of strategists set about dividing Canada’s electoral map into target ridings, ranked according to their chances of winning in them. In a 21st-century-style campaign, though, the distinctions would be far more sophisticated than simply “winnable” and “unwinnable” ridings. Trudeau’s Liberals divided the nation’s 338 electoral districts into six types, named for metals and compounds: platinum, gold, silver, bronze, steel and wood.

Platinum ridings were sure bets: mostly the few dozen that the Liberals had managed to keep in the electoral catastrophe of 2011. Gold ridings were not quite that solid, but they were the ones in which the party strategists felt pretty certain about their prospects. Silver ridings were the ones the Liberals would need to gain to win the election, while bronze ridings, the longer shots, would push them into majority government territory. Steel ridings were ones they might win in a subsequent election, and wood ridings were the ones where the Liberals probably could never win a seat, in rural Alberta for instance.

The Console kept close track of voter outreach efforts on the ground, right down to the number of doorsteps visited by volunteers and what kind of information they had gathered from those visits — family size, composition, political interests, even the estimated age of the residents. By consulting the Console, campaigners could even figure out which time of day was best for canvassing in specific neighbourhoods or which voters required another visit to seal the deal.

When the Liberal team unveiled the Console to Trudeau, he was blown away. He told his team that it was his new favourite thing. He wanted regular briefings on the contents of the program: where it showed the Liberal party ahead, and where fortunes were flagging and volunteers needed to do more door-knocking. Actually, he wondered, why couldn’t he be given access to the Console himself, so that he could consult it on his home computer or on his phone while on the road?

And that, Trudeau would say later, was the last he ever saw of the Console. “My job was to bring it back, not on the analysis side, but on the connection side — on getting volunteers to go out, drawing people in, getting people to sign up,” Trudeau said. Clearly he was doing something right on that score — Liberal membership numbers had climbed from about 60,000 to 300,000 within Trudeau’s first 18 months as leader.

Volunteers for the party would learn — often to their peril — that the leader was fiercely serious about turning his crowd appeal into useful data. Trudeau wasn’t known for displays of temper, but the easiest way to provoke him was to fall down on the job of collecting data from the crowds at campaign stops. Few things made Trudeau angrier, for instance, than to see Liberal volunteers surrounding him at events instead of gathering up contact information. “That was what I demanded. If they wanted a visit from the leader they had to arrange that or else I’d be really upset,” Trudeau said.

Source: How the Big Red Machine became the big data machine | Toronto Star

The controversial plan to give Kuwait’s stateless people citizenship of a tiny, poor African island – The Washington Post

Another illustration of some of the unsavoury aspects of Gulf countries:

Comoros, an island nation in the Indian Ocean, is one of the smallest countries in Africa. Excluding the contested island of Mayotte, the Comoros archipelago covers about 640 square miles, roughly half the size of Rhode Island. Fewer than a million people live on the islands, made up of a variety of ethnicities that reflect the nation’s location at a historical crossroads.

But if a new plan gets the go-ahead, Comoros may gain significantly more citizens — by offering thousands, if not many more, of stateless people from Kuwait “economic citizenship.”

And many experts are not so sure this is a good thing.

These stateless people are mostly from Kuwait’s Bidun population, which numbers about 100,000. Almost by definition — their name comes from the Arabic phrase “bidun jinsiya” or “without nationality” — they do not have citizenship and are considered illegal immigrants. Some are the descendants of nomadic tribes who never asked for citizenship when Kuwait became independent in 1961. Others are Arabs who joined the Kuwaiti army in the 1970s and ’80s but never gained citizenship. Others have been refused citizenship for political reasons.

The Bidun form a sizable minority in Kuwait, where the total citizenship is about 1.5 million. They are often disenfranchised, having long been refused the generous state benefits that Kuwait awards to its citizens. Kuwait, perhaps fearful of what an angry Bidun minority may do, offered some limited reforms in 2011: allowing Biduns to claim health care and education, for example, and register their births, marriages and deaths. But Human Rights Watch noted at the time, many Biduns complained that bureaucratic processes meant it was difficult to get these benefits. And there remained no path to citizenship.

The government announced this would change in 2014 — but there was a catch. The citizenship on offer wasn’t going to be Kuwaiti. Instead, Sheikh Mazen Al-Jarah Al-Sabah, assistant undersecretary for citizenship and passports affairs in Kuwait’s Interior Ministry, revealed in an interview that the government was negotiating with a foreign country that would be willing to offer the Biduns citizenship in exchange for economic benefits. Later that year, the government confirmed Comoros was the country in question, although no officials from Comoros commented.

It was only this week that Comoros finally ended speculation and confirmed that it was willing to accept a deal. “Yes, it is something we are ready to do if officially requested by the Kuwaiti government,” Comorian External Affairs Minister Abdul Karim Mohammad, on a visit to Kuwait, told a Kuwaiti newspaper. Although the details have not been announced, it looks as if the plan is gathering steam.

Why would someone living in Kuwait want citizenship of a small island off the coast of Mozambique? There are some cultural links here — Comoros is largely Sunni Muslim, and it is a member of the Arab League — but the deal largely comes down to economic factors. Kuwait, bolstered by its oil industry, has a gross domestic product per capita of $43,500. Despite its idyllic natural beauty, Comoros’ GDP per capita is just more than $810; about 18 percent of the population lives on less than $1.90 a day. The country’s small economy has been strongly hindered by political instability. Since gaining independence from France in 1975, there have been more than 20 coups and secession attempts for which it gained an unfortunate nickname the “coup-coup islands.”

Source: The controversial plan to give Kuwait’s stateless people citizenship of a tiny, poor African island – The Washington Post

Daphne Bramham: Canada’s flawed bill will make it easier for ‘citizens of convenience’

Will see whether other former citizenship judges speak publicly on C-6 either against or in favour (the article mistakenly states that the Liberal government is eliminating the physical presence requirement – it is not):

Some of what Robert Watt saw and heard during six years as a citizenship judge shocked him. It’s why he’s so deeply concerned about some of the Liberals’ proposed amendments in Bill C-6.

“Memorably, on one occasion, several newly sworn in citizens brought suitcases to the ceremony room for a rapid departure to Vancouver International Airport,” he wrote in a submission to the committee that studied the bill.

He calls them citizens of convenience.

“Very early on, it became clear that a noticeable percentage of all applicants were not really interested in citizenship,” he said.

Many had left Canada immediately after making an application to return to work or to school in their country of birth or residence. They stayed there until they were required to come back to have their documents checked and take the knowledge test. Then, they’d leave again, “coming one more time to take the (Citizenship) Oath, and then leaving again.”

In many cases, he wrote that they “distorted and misrepresented” how long they had been in Canada. Using their permanent residents’ cards, they left no record of the times they came and went from Canada via the United States.

Along with other citizenship judges, Watt held hearings to try to extract the truth about how much time they had been here. In some cases, they found that applicants in line for citizenship had been outside Canada for so long that even their permanent resident cards had expired.

“These applicants were at first startling,” Watt wrote. “Then, as they kept turning up, they provided the most dramatic evidence why it was essential to have the requirements for citizenship made as clear as possible; and, to have assessment processes which would ensure that those who deserved citizenship and truly qualified for it, received it and those who fell short … did not.”

Three of the Liberals’ amendments cause the former citizenship judge the most concern. They are: reducing the amount of time spent in Canada before applying for citizenship; limiting the requirement to speak one of the two official languages; and, eliminating the “intent to reside” provision.

Source: Daphne Bramham: Canada’s flawed bill will make it easier for ‘citizens of convenience’ | Vancouver Sun

Malta’s citizenship scheme ranks number one in Henley & Partners report – The Malta Independent

Best compilation of citizenship investment programs, by the company that promotes them:

Malta’s citizenship scheme has taken the number one spot in a report compiled by Henley & Partners.

Henley & Partners launched its Global Residence and Citizenship Programs 2016 report, which ranks the 19 most relevant residence-by-investment programs as well as the top eight citizenship-by-investment programs available throughout the world today.

“For the second year in a row, Malta’s Individual Investor Programme is the top ranking citizenship-by-investment program in the world, with a score of 73 out of 100. The Mediterranean island nation is followed by Cyprus (71), and Antigua and Barbuda (62) in 2nd and 3rd place respectively,” the report read.

“A Maltese citizen has the right of settlement in all 28 EU countries and enjoys visa-free travel to 168 countries worldwide including the EU, the US and Canada. For improved visa-free travel, permanent relocation, and financial security, Malta is the way to go”.

“The Malta Individual Investor Programme is a modern citizenship-by-investment program designed, implemented and globally promoted by Henley & Partners for the Government of Malta under a Public Services Concession. Moreover, it is considered the world’s most advanced and most exclusive citizenship-by-investment program, being capped at 1800 applicants. Compliance and due diligence standards are considered to be the world’s strictest, aiming to ensure that only the most respectable of applicants are admitted”

As for Residency programmes, out of the 19 programs reviewed, Portugal’s Golden Residence Permit Program has again emerged as the world’s best residence-by-investment program, with a score of 80 out of 100. It is followed by Belgium (78) and Austria (77) in 2nd and 3rd place respectively.

In order for a person to acquire Maltese citizenship, one would have to make a contribution to the development of Malta, make a purchase of stocks/bonds, and must undertake a property transaction. “The combined upfront financial requirement, including applicable government charges and citizenship application fees, is just under  €900,000, the Henley and Partners website says.

Source: Malta’s citizenship scheme ranks number one in Henley & Partners report – The Malta Independent

Liberals edge closer to repealing Conservative citizenship changes, though Senate remains a wildcard

Will indeed be interesting to see how the Senate handles C-6, as will also be for C-14 (assisted dying):

The House Immigration Committee completed its study of Bill C-6, sending it back to the House with a pair amendments on May 5. The committee heard from 27 witnesses during five meetings devoted to studying the bill.

Liberal MP Borys Wrzesnewskyj (Etobicoke Centre, Ont.), who chairs the committee, said in an interview that while it was “hard to predict” what would happen once the bill reached the Senate, he was “cautiously optimistic” that “by the time we rise for the summer…we’ll be able to say that once again in Canada, ‘A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian.’”

The office of Government House Leader Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour, N.B.), who shepherds government legislation through the House, did not respond to a request for comment by press time.

Mr. McCallum told the House Immigration Committee last month that the implementation of C-6 would likely be delayed once it passed into law, “in order to prevent the buildup in [citizenship application] backlogs resulting from this change.”

Mr. McCallum also said that it would be “difficult to predict” how the Senate would handle the bill. There are more Conservatives in the Senate than either Liberals or independents, though Liberal and independent Senators have a narrow majority if they vote as a bloc.

The Senate Social Affairs, Science, and Technology Committee typically handles immigration-related legislation, and in the previous Parliament reviewed Bill C-24. The Conservatives currently have a majority on that committee.

None of the six Conservative Senators on the Senate Social Affairs Committee agreed or were available to be interviewed about Bill C-6. Conservative Senator Kelvin Ogilvie, the committee chair, declined through an office staff member, citing his role as chair.

Conservative Senator and committee member Judith Seidman also declined through a staff member on the grounds that the bill was still before the House.

Conservative Senator and committee member Carolyn Stewart Olsen wrote in an emailed statement that she would not comment on Bill C-6 or make up her mind about it before it was put before the Social Affairs Committee.

Source: Liberals edge closer to repealing Conservative citizenship changes, though Senate remains a wildcard |

Supreme Court should let long-term expats vote: Pardy

Gar Pardy joins the extend the expatriate vote advocates.

Like most advocates, they appear to argue for this right to be indefinite, no matter how long outside Canada, no matter how little the connection.

All – unless I have missed it – are silent with respect to those born-abroad but who are able to ‘inherit’ their citizenship, and who may never have lived in Canada:

Two Canadians living in the United States started the right-to-vote case now before the Supreme Court nearly five years ago. They filed a constitutional challenge with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice when they discovered they could not vote in the 2011 federal election.

Judge Michael Penny of the Ontario court ruled in May 2014 that Parliament could not take away the voting rights of non-resident Canadian citizens. In doing so, Judge Penny struck down sections of the Canada Elections Act since they violated Section 3 of the Charter of Rights and Freedom.

The Harper government appealed this decision to the Ontario Court of Appeal. In a split decision (two to one) last July, it overruled Judge Penny. The majority ruled that while Section 3 of the charter had been violated, the “pressing and substantial” standard of Section 1 provided enough reason for the violation.

The dissenting judge, Justice John Laskin, strongly and substantively took issue with the majority decision. He argued that Judge Penny’s judgment was a “thorough and well-reasoned analysis of the issues.” He went on to argue that the majority’s use of the “the pressing and substantial objective of preserving the social contract at the heart of Canada’s system of constitutional democracy” was not valid.

The introduction of the “social contract” element in the case was not reflected in the government’s arguments before Judge Penny nor was it reflected in the documentation presented before the appeal court. Rather, the government’s lawyers did so only in oral arguments to which Justice Laskin disagreed. He concluded that Parliament did not have a “social contract” objective in mind when it passed the “five-year non-residency limitation in 1993.”

The majority decision of the appeal court in using the gaseous concept of “social contract” to deny a fundamental right of all Canadians to vote is without precedent. It does reflect many aspects of policy-making by the previous government where reason, evidence, and attention to detail were discarded. In the words of Judge Penny, the government’s arguments demonstrated that “there is simply no evidence of a problem. Rather, the government’s objectives are rhetorical, vague, and generic.”

Social contracts between the state and its citizens have long been an idea that philosophers have argued over far into the night without adding much useful light. Rather, as Justice Laskin concluded, the deprivation of the right to vote solely on the basis of residence turns Canadians abroad “into second-class citizens and so undermines the values of equality and inclusiveness…underlying our charter rights.”

In due course we can all hope the Supreme Court overrules this aberrant decision by the Ontario appeal court and in doing so establishes the charter right for some one million Canadians to vote.

Source: Supreme Court should let long-term expats vote |

Denouncing Queen invalidates citizenship oath

Some still think we are a British colony, unaware of the Statute of Westminster and the repatriation of the Constitution?

In hearing that Srabon Salim was able to send a letter not acknowledging the Queen minutes after the Oath of Citizenship is not Canadian. As such it breaks the contract between that person and Canada therefore rebuking their citizenship.

Whether people like it or not we are a British colony.

If you are able to make a promise when you know that you are going to dismiss the promise immediately after, is that not the same as lying under oath? If people were to do that in a court room would it not make all of our testimonies potentially false?

There is also another part of the Oath that says “I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfill my duties as a Canadian citizen.”

If people are able to break the oath would they not be able to then say they don’t recognize Canadian laws and follow their own laws or the laws of the country they came from.

If someone does not want to observe our Queen why would they choose to live here? It is of my opinion that as long as we are a British colony, and if someone says in an Oath; “be faithful and bear true allegiance to her Majesty” they should not be able to denounce it, or as said before the contract is broken and they are no longer a Citizen of Canada.

Source: Denouncing Queen invalidates citizenship oath