Buying Your St. Kitts Citizenship May Get More Expensive Soon

The risks of citizenship for sale and who it appears to attract:

While the government’s citizenship-by-investment program, in place since 1984, helped St. Kitts & Nevis weather the global financial crisis, it has earned the country criticism as well. Canada in November revoked St. Kitts & Nevis citizens’ visa-free travel. The U.S., which offers its own residency-for-investment program starting at $1 million, issued a financial advisory against holders of citizenship-by-investment passports, saying Iranian nationals used the St. Kitts program to evade sanctions on their country.

The passport deal “is attractive to illicit actors because the program, as administered, maintains lax controls as to who may be granted citizenship,” Treasury said.

The program injected more than $74 million into the $766 million St. Kitts & Nevis economy in 2013, according to a budget presentation last year by then-Prime Minister Denzil Douglas. The IMF forecast revenue from the program at about $37 million per year from 2015-2017.

The island’s success has inspired governments from Cyprus to Grenada to create similar incentives for investment. For the buyer, the program can offer visa-free travel, a safe haven from political instability or a tool for avoiding taxes.

Newly minted citizens aren’t required to live on the islands, or even visit them, according to the government, whose webpage on frequently asked questions about the program begins with “Where is St. Kitts and Nevis?”

Buying Your St. Kitts Citizenship May Get More Expensive Soon – Bloomberg Business.

English test should be mandatory for people wanting citizenship in Australia, says Liberal MP Sharman Stone

Always interesting to see how Canada and Australia look to each other and adopt similar practices. Minister Kenney, early in his mandate as Secretary of State for Multiculturalism, visited Australia to learn from the then Howard government’s approach to multiculturalism, identity and related issues.

Discover Canada‘s approach was influenced by some of the experience of the Australian “history wars,” the debates over their historical narrative. Express Entry was largely modelled on Australia’s equivalent.

Now the Abbott government is taking a Canadian approach to citizenship revocation for treason or terror and this proposal for greater rigour in language testing may be a variant of the Canadian approach of pre-screening for language competency using an equivalency-based approach (rather than a separate test to administer):

People wanting to become citizens in Australia should have to undertake an English language test, Liberal MP Sharman Stone says, in a push to overhaul the current citizenship requirements.

Would-be citizens are currently asked 20 questions in the Australian “citizenship test” about Australia’s beliefs, values, its law system and Australian people. Questions are multiple choice and require a basic knowledge of English and Australian laws to pass it.

But Dr Stone says the requirements are “slack” and not rigorous enough, supporting a suggestion in a government discussion paper released last week that would require new citizens to sit an English exam before they are announced as Australians.

The paper also suggests “standardising English-language requirements, to ensure citizens have adequate language ability, taking into account particular circumstances such as age”.

Dr Stone said it was not a benefit to the individual, nor for Australia, if people cannot speak English in Australia, drawing from experience at citizenship ceremonies in her Victorian electorate of Murray where she estimates a number of new citizens cannot read, write or speak basic English.

“The citizenship service is a mockery,” she told Fairfax Media.

Knowing the basics of the English language is imperative for people to be able to participate in the Australian society, including voting, jury duty or understanding “Australian responsibilities”, she said.

“It makes me very sorry when people who come into my office and say they need an interpreter and are feeling alienated,” she said.

English test should be mandatory for people wanting citizenship in Australia, says Liberal MP Sharman Stone.

Government of Canada now able to revoke citizenship of dual citizens convicted of terrorism – Coming into Force

Clear signal on which cases will be a priority: those tried and convicted in Canada, neatly avoiding some of the foreign judicial process issues raised during C-24 hearings.

But not avoiding, of course, the more fundamental issue of differential treatment for dual citizens compared to Canadian-only citizens:

Measures came into force officially today that enable Canada to revoke citizenship from dual nationals convicted of terrorism, treason and high treason, and/or spying for foreign governments.

Canadian citizenship can now also be revoked from dual citizens for taking up arms against Canada and the Canadian Armed Forces, whether as a member of a foreign army or in non-state terrorist groups like ISIS.

Also officially in force as of today is a new, more streamlined citizenship revocation process.  This new process will help ensure Canada and Canadians are protected, and that revocation decisions can be made quickly, decisively and fairly.

Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) officials will be implementing these new measures immediately and will prioritize cases that have been tried and convicted here in Canada on at least one of the grave crimes listed above.

Government of Canada now able to revoke citizenship of dual citizens convicted of terrorism

 

Australia: Debacle over terrorism and citizenship is leak-based policy in its purest form | Lenore Taylor | Australia news | The Guardian

Lenore Taylor of The Guardian on the leak strategy being used to sell the proposed Australian revocation policy change for convicted terrorists:

One might ask what is to be gained from so many headlines galloping so far ahead of actual decisions, or indeed, actual facts.

Does it help the police and intelligence agencies with their very important task of “keeping Australians safe” either by preventing acts of violence in this country, or preventing dangerous foreign fighters from returning, or the strategy for countering violent extremism aimed at stopping people here from becoming radicalised and dangerous?

Or is it playing to a very different audience – with the much more political aim of keeping security threats at the forefront of the national conversation and, perhaps, goading Labor into disagreement so that they can be portrayed as “weak on terror”?

The prime minister’s most powerful advisor is taking a keen interest in the policy and politics of the issue – his chief of staff, Peta Credlin, told a recent meeting of Coalition staff she was spending at least 40% of her time on the issue.

Another clue might lie in yet more information from the prime minister’s office to the Daily Telegraph, this time in an article entitled “The first cracks in Australia’s bipartisan approach to terrorism could doom Bill Shorten” which revealed that the prime minister received 900 emails in the week after the budget expressing anger at the possibility that “repentant Australian jihadis” might be allowed back into the country.

The article praised the prime minister’s “instinctive” response that “If you go abroad to join a terrorist group and you seek to come back to Australia, you will be arrested, you will be prosecuted and jailed” in comparison with Shorten’s reaction that “There are laws in place, I’m not going to play judge and jury.”

But of course, there are laws in place, and they do have evidentiary requirements. Which means the courts may not in every case implement the prime minister’s “instinct”. Which is presumably where the new policy-thought about citizenship-stripping comes in. And Shorten has been pretty careful to make sure there are no “cracks” in the bipartisanship on these issues, no matter what the government proposes.

There is, of course, an alternative to slap-dash policy in response constituent-email reaction, or policy by cabinet-pre-empting, headline-seeking press leak, and that is that old-fashioned idea of policy developed to address a real problem, thought through and discussed by cabinet, before public announcement.

Debacle over terrorism and citizenship is leak-based policy in its purest form | Lenore Taylor | Australia news | The Guardian.

Goodbye, citizenship! Australia takes a cynical turn on Muslim radicalisation | Jason Wilson | Comment is free | The Guardian

Some of the initial critical commentary on Australian plans for citizenship revocation and approach to radicalization, along with the perennial values debate. Echoes of C-51 Government messaging and issues:

You may notice if you read the transcript of Abbott’s press conference that this is political communication that doesn’t impart any information. Is “radicalisation” the same as “violent extremism”? Does one cause the other?

Are they linked in a causal chain? What should we be looking for? What is acceptable for citizens in a democracy to say, think, or read and what isn’t? What is the distinction between “extremism” and ordinary Muslim belief that the government keeps insisting that they respect? From whence comes the assumption that this is related to an insufficient inculcation of the virtues and responsibilities of citizenship?

Anyone who looks to the attorney general’s department’s materials will find a lack of clarity on all of this that is either chilling or embarrassing, depending on your point of view.

We’re told that “People can become radicalised to violent extremism due to a range of factors.” We’re also informed that people can get grants for combatting it to provide support for a range of activities, including mentoring, counselling, “case management” and sport, “But we are open to a wide range of ideas!” And we’re also told that the list of organisations offering services in this area will be collated without being made public. All in all, it’s bewildering.

To the observer, it may seem that debate without any specific terms is being had about existing schemes without clear public criteria of success, with the promise of further discussion whose terms are murky. There’s no reference to the extant scholarly and professional discussion about why and how people drift to Islamism, which emphasises the role of perceived injustice.

More cynically, you might say that this all works pretty well to keep terms like “radicalisation” and “extremism” as content-free, flexible terms that do little more than gesture towards the Muslims in our midst as a source of potential danger, and authorise governments to protect us from that danger, whatever it is, and empower them to police deviations from an equally imaginary moderate middle. A lot of reporting is not helping to clarify the situation: it’s simply taking all of this as read.

This effort by government to produce a vague sense of insecurity, then offer to protect us from it, can lead us in strange and alarming directions. Last week Christopher Pyne mooted a “jihadi-watch” scheme for schools, where education authorities would move to train students and teachers “to watch for shifts in behaviour such as students drifting away from their friends, running into minor trouble with the law and arguing with those who have different ideological views to their own”.

Goodbye, citizenship! Australia takes a cynical turn on Muslim radicalisation | Jason Wilson | Comment is free | The Guardian.

Canada takes a step back on immigration policy | Bauder and Omidvar

Harald Bauder and Ratna Omidvar overview on citizenship and immigration policy changes and their implications:

Ottawa has failed in our eyes to provide a convincing justification for these changes. Many dependants and elderly family members seem to be excluded not because they would be eligible for social benefits but simply because they are from low-income families.

Canada has a story of exceptionalism to tell and it is widely regarded by others as model in how it manages immigration and succeeds in integrating immigrants. However, the evidence now tells another story, one that is somewhat more tarnished than we know.

The new data signals a shift and encourages us to reflect on the most alarming trends and redirect where necessary. But there is good mixed in with the bad. Canada still leads in labour market integration, anti-discrimination and creating a sense of belonging for newcomers. The one-point drop is smoke and not fire.

Canada takes a step back on immigration policy | Toronto Star.

Dual-national jihadists face loss of Australian citizenship, but not sole nationals yet

Out of the Canadian Conservative government (and UK) playbook, with interesting internal disagreement over whether or not this should include revocation in case of statelessness:

Tony Abbott will push ahead with proposed changes to strip dual citizens of their Australian nationality if they are suspected of terrorism, but has deferred a decision on strong new powers against sole nationals after a cabinet backlash.

The prime minister confirmed a bill to be introduced to parliament in coming weeks would grant the immigration minister the discretion to strip dual nationals of their citizenship if they were deemed to be involved in terrorism, even if the person had not been convicted of an offence.

But the government is yet to settle on a position on punishing Australians who hold no other citizenship after several ministers raised significant concerns in cabinet on Monday evening.

It is understood Abbott backed the push by the immigration minister, Peter Dutton, for the power to strip sole nationals of their Australian citizenship in cases where they were entitled to apply for citizenship in another country.

But the attorney general, George Brandis, the defence minister, Kevin Andrews, and the communications minister, Malcolm Turnbull, are believed to be among numerous ministers who raised concerns during the cabinet discussion.

Fairfax Media reported that the foreign affairs minister, Julie Bishop, had also questioned whether another country would be likely to approve a citizenship application for a person from whom Australia had deprived citizenship.

In an interview with Sky News on Tuesday, Brandis emphasised that the government had not made any decisions about second-generation Australians and had instead opted to “lead a national conversation about the rights and obligations associated with citizenship”. This will begin with the release of a discussion paper for community feedback on Tuesday.

Dual-national jihadists face loss of Australian citizenship, but not sole nationals yet | Australia news | The Guardian.

New Zealand Prime Minister Kay takes a different tack with respect to an Australian/New Zealander dual national:

NZ ‘unlikely’ to strip woman’s citizenship – PM

Formerly stateless Yukon man celebrates hard-fought Canadian citizenship

Nice to see a successful resolution to a case like this:

A decision by his anarchist First Nation father and Caucasian mother not to register his birth out of fear he’d end up in a residential school started a life-long bureaucratic tussle.

With no birth certificate, he couldn’t get identification, a legitimate job or even medical care.

But a team effort of citizen advocates, a pro bono lawyer, friends and family members, brought together by media attention, altered his plight.

Finally a Canadian, McGlaughlin said he can apply for a Social Insurance Number, health-care card, driver’s licence, marriage certificate, then travel to British Columbia’s Great Bear Rainforest to see the spirit bear and California’s redwood forests — a dream of one of his sons.

“All my life, yeah, dogs have had more rights,” said McGlaughlin. “They (governments) enact more laws pertaining to dogs and cats than they do to help stateless people. I’ve always said I should just go buy a dog tag and wear it around my neck, and there. There’s my ID. I’m Fido.”

McGlaughlin doesn’t know where or when he was born, only that it was between Rosebud, S.D., and where his maternal grandparents lived in Guelph, Ont., around Jan. 19, 1954, the day he celebrates as his birthday.

Fearing the government, his parents home schooled him and moved around Canada, he said, adding he broke loose when he was 15 and worked “migrant jobs” on farms.

About 30 years ago, he hitchhiked to the Yukon, where he has lived ever since, supporting himself by hunting and fishing on aboriginal land.

The first in a series of heart attacks struck in 2010 and because he had no health-care card his medical bills rose to about $130,000, he said.

Michelle Quigg, a lawyer with the Access Pro Bono Society of British Columbia, which helps people of limited means, said she began to help out after reading a news story about McGlaughlin in which he mused about declaring refugee status.

She helped him apply for citizenship, citing a “special and unusual hardship.”

“The … hardship in Donovan’s case is that he has no documents, which is very unusual,” said Quigg. “I mean most of us have birth certificates and all kinds of official documentation that Donovan didn’t have.”

Formerly stateless Yukon man celebrates hard-fought Canadian citizenship | CTV News.

Australia to Revoke Citizenship of Australian-Born Jihadis – NYTimes.com

More the Canadian model than the UK model (given the provision would not be applied to Australians without claim to another nationality to avoid statelessness).

With, of course, the same problems with respect to security (does sending people to countries where they may be free increase or decrease security) and fairness (treating people who have committed similar crimes differently on the basis of nationality):

Australia plans to strip citizenship from Australian-born children of immigrants who become Islamic State fighters in its crackdown on homegrown jihadis, a minister said on Thursday.

The government wants to change the Citizenship Act to make fighting for Islamic State in Syria and Iraq a reason for losing citizenship, Immigration Minister Peter Dutton said.

The government also wants to adopt the British legal model by revoking the citizenship of extremists who are Australian-born children of immigrants or an immigrant, forcing them to take up citizenship in the birth country of their parents, or parent, Dutton said.

Dual nationals could also lose their Australian citizenship, while Australians without claim to another nationality could not.

“The principle for us, which is very important, is that we don’t render people stateless,” Dutton told Sydney Radio 2GB.

Australia to Revoke Citizenship of Australian-Born Jihadis – NYTimes.com.

Steep rise in citizenship to Hindus and Sikhs from Pakistan and Afghanistan under PM Modi-led government

Interesting and something little reported outside of India:

At the end of April 2015, the BJP government has approved citizenship for 4,230 Hindus and Sikhs from these two countries who have sought refuse in India, compared with 1,023 granted by the Congress-led UPA-II.

The increase in citizenship grants is in line with BJP’s declared aim of positioning India as a refuge for Hindus fleeing persecution anywhere in the world, much like Israel’s stance towards Jews. In its election manifesto for the 2014 Lok Sabha elections, the BJP had declared India as “a natural home for persecuted Hindus” who “shall be welcome to seek refuge”.

“The numbers of those granted citizenship are miniscule as compared to the country’s population. Government has taken a call resolve the problems being faced by people of Indian origin who in anyway were staying in the country for long,” a home ministry spokesperson said.

Government officials told ET that the number of Hindus from neighbouring Islamic countries getting Indian nationality could see a sharp spike in the months ahead, with the home ministry stepping up efforts to expedite long-term visas and citizenship to those fleeing Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh.

After the BJP government took charge in Delhi last May, nearly 19,000 migrants have already been given long-term visas in Madhya Pradesh. Some 11,000 persons have been granted visas, which precede citizenship, in Rajasthan, while in case of Gujarat, the figure is around 4,000, said officials familiar with the drive.

Steep rise in citizenship to Hindus and Sikhs from Pakistan and Afghanistan under PM Modi-led government – The Economic Times.