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

Mohamed Fahmy foundation created to help others imprisoned abroad

Understand the position of Fahmy and his supporters but not sure whether a new law is needed, if it would make a difference to governments in the future.

One of the other questions is with respect to its effectiveness for dual citizens who entered a country under that country’s passport (a situation when “a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian” does not apply according to the other government):

Mohamed Fahmy, the Egyptian-born Canadian journalist who was wrongly arrested and spent a year in a prison in Egypt, is working to make it law for the federal government step in and help others imprisoned abroad.

Fahmy, who is speaking in Halifax today at an Atlantic Journalism Awards event, said he is working on a “protection charter” through a non-profit foundation called Fahmy Foundation for a Free Press.

“I have been working with Amnesty [International] on this protective charter.  We are hoping to improve consular services for Canadians abroad,” he told CBC’s Mainstreet.

“At the moment the Canadian government deals on its own discretion when a Canadian is imprisoned abroad. We are pushing and hoping to obligate it to make it a law, enshrined in the Canadian system.”

Fahmy also gave a public talk in Halifax Saturday to raise funds for his foundation.

The foundation wants a mechanism that directs Canadian ambassadors to speak to families, NGOs and the media in a timely manner about Canadians being jailed abroad, he said.

“The urgency about moving in the first 48 hours someone is detained because that is the time someone can get tortured or killed in some of these Middle Eastern prisons, that I have seen myself.”

Source: Mohamed Fahmy foundation created to help others imprisoned abroad – Nova Scotia – CBC News

Immigration [citizenship] fraud makes us vulnerable: Hassan

Farzana Hassan on the OAG report on citizenship fraud (Gaps in Ottawa’s detection of citizenship fraud, auditor finds):

According to a Sun story Tuesday: “Michael Ferguson’s report uncovered instances of people with serious criminal records and others using potentially phony addresses, among those who managed to secure Canadian citizenship, thanks to holes throughout not just the Immigration Department but the RCMP and Canada Border Services Agency as well.”

Of course, we should expect some mistakes in any government department, but it is reasonable to ask how widespread is the failure to weed out undesirable people from entering Canada and what will be done to solve the problem?

Immigration Minister John McCallum reacted to the report by saying the Liberal government is already looking into the issue and trying to address the problem. But the public needs something more tangible from the government than a formulaic response.

Andrew Griffith, author of the book, Multiculturalism in Canada: Evidence and Anecdote, writes in his blog entitled Multicultural Meanderings, “One of the lasting legacies of the Conservative government was increased attention to the integrity of the program, beyond the issues identified in the OAG report (e.g., rotating citizenship test questions, more rigorous and consistent language assessment, and the integrity measures of C-24).”

The Trudeau government has retained many of these controls, but the technology solutions enabling effective oversight need to be refined.

Griffith is convinced the problem is not too widespread, but the current high reliance on manual data entry and human triggered searches is so critically prone to error that a simple spelling mistake can cause a failure in the system.

Automated alerts need to be in place. Electronic scanning for data accuracy and compatibility between security organizations needs to be a priority.

The stakes are high, and the current system has too many holes to provide the kind of assurance to which Canadians are entitled.

Despite the optimism of observers like Griffith, it is clear the system needs a thorough overhaul, especially when immigration in many cases is being aggressively and fraudulently pursued in terror-exporting countries like Pakistan and others in the Middle East.

Human error will continue to play a role in any system. But in an electronic age, automatic identification technology and smart systems that use leading-edge applications can significantly reduce mistakes.

Canadians deserve to know they are safe from people with criminal records and jihadi mindsets

Source: Immigration fraud makes us vulnerable | HASSAN | Columnists | Opinion | Toronto

Language requirement for citizenship unnecessary, Reis Pagtakhan writes

Pagtakhan develops further the arguments he made during the C-6 hearings which, while interesting, would be more convincing if he were able to back his assertions with harder evidence and more granular data (one area I will be looking into more in my 2016 Census update Multiculturalism in Canada: Evidence and Anecdote will be languages spoken):

The three main arguments for requiring new immigrants to pass a language test before becoming citizens are to ensure that they are employable in Canada, are able to integrate into Canadian society, and are able to settle and live here safely and comfortably.

Laudable goals unmet

While these are laudable goals, testing immigrants for language at the point they apply for citizenship misses one big thing — these immigrants have already been living here for years. As a result, testing for language at this stage will not help in achieving these goals.

Once people immigrate to Canada, they are legally entitled to work, study and live in Canada for the rest of their lives. At no point do they have to be retested for language to maintain their right to live in Canada. Many immigrants come to Canada and never apply for citizenship. If these immigrants are not required to take a language test before immigrating, they can live here without proving any language proficiency.

If knowledge of English or French is so important for employment, integration and settlement, why do we allow some immigrants into Canada without testing them for English or French? Furthermore, why do we let them to stay here without periodically testing them for language?

While periodically testing immigrants for language would probably infringe on their charter rights, there is another practical reason why we should not testing them for language after arrival in Canada — these immigrants will likely improve their English or French in Canada out of their own self-interest to be successful.

…The fact is that most people who live in Canada, whether they are immigrants or individuals born here, will learn English or French. English or French is the language used in virtually all schools and workplaces in Canada. The motivation to speak English or French will not come from a citizenship test requirement, it will come from a person’s need to be successful here. The money spent by new Canadians who pay for these tests and the money spent paying government officers to review these test results can be better spent elsewhere.

Source: Language requirement for citizenship unnecessary, Reis Pagtakhan writes – Manitoba – CBC News

Citizenship Act: Changes to revocation for misrepresentation coming

At the CIMM hearings 5 May on the IRCC estimates, Minister McCallum committed to address the concerns raised by witnesses regarding that revocation for fraud or misrepresentation lacked  procedural protections and due process (e.g., no right to appeal).

He stated that he would return in the fall with legislation and that IRCC was considering options. This could not be done “overnight” in the “proper way” and hinted that some of these options might include machinery changes (e.g., role for IRB).

In addition, he acknowledged that some of the amendments ruled inadmissible (see C-6 Citizenship Act: Clause-by-clause review) may be possible at some future date.