Burma’s opposition demands government gives citizenship to Rohingya refugees adrift on the Andaman Sea

Encouraging:

The Burmese government has so far disclaimed any responsibility for the fate of the thousands of Rohingya refugees adrift on the Andaman Sea. But now the spokesman for the National League for Democracy, Burma’s most important opposition party, has demanded a long-term solution to the problem: giving them citizenship.

In an interview with The Independent, U Nyan Win said: “The problem needs to be solved by the law. The law needs to be amended. After one or two generations [of residence] they should have the right to be citizens.”

The statement was a bold break with the NLD’s usual ultra-cautious approach to an issue regarded as highly inflammatory in this Buddhist-majority country – Buddhists constitute 85 per cent of the population – in which atavistic fears of Muslim domination have been whipped up by chauvinistic Buddhist preachers.

Speaking to AFP earlier, he said: “If [the Rohingya] are not accepted as citizens, they cannot just be sent onto rivers. They can’t be pushed out to sea. They are humans. I just see them as humans who are entitled to human rights.”

Burma’s opposition demands government gives citizenship to Rohingya refugees adrift on the Andaman Sea – Asia – World – The Independent.

Let non-citizens vote in municipal elections: Editorial | Toronto Star

I don’t agree with The Star’s position.

Citizenship take-up should be encouraged and municipal voting for non-citizens may result in less incentive to become citizens. I have never seen any convincing evidence that municipal voting for Permanent Residents will significantly increase voter participation and visible minority representation.

The revisions to the Citizenship Act along with previous changes, making it harder for some visible minorities to become citizens, and with an overall decline in citizenship uptake, do however weaken the case against allowing non-citizen municipal voting:

Toronto Mayor John Tory doesn’t want people who aren’t Canadian citizens to vote in municipal elections. It’s a reasonable stand, but he should change his mind.

We did.

In 2005 the Star was firmly opposed to giving non-citizens the right to cast a municipal ballot, arguing that this was a well-intentioned proposal that would unfortunately dilute the privilege of citizenship.

Tory expressed similar sentiments this past week at a Ryerson City Building Institute forum organized to explore ways of bridging urban divides. Giving non-citizens the vote was suggested as a way to open up the democratic process and help more visible minority candidates win elected office.

Mississauga Mayor Bonnie Crombie and Ajax Mayor Steve Parish welcomed the idea. But the Star’s David Rider reports that Tory expressed reservations, including doubt that this change could actually boost the diversity of municipal councils.

As far as getting more minority people elected, the reform is at least worth a try. Not much else has worked so far. But even beyond that, change is a matter of fairness. On this ground alone, the right to vote in municipal elections should be extended to all permanent residents — citizens and non-citizens alike.

It’s estimated that more than a quarter-million newcomers live, work and play in Toronto. They volunteer in support of local causes, send their children to local schools, pay local taxes, and support local businesses. Yet they’re barred from the ballot box, denying them a say in how this city is run, because they’re not Canadian citizens.

At least 40 other countries allow non-citizens to vote at the municipal level, and it’s time Toronto did too. The province would need to amend the Municipal Elections Act to bring this about and it would be a big help if Toronto’s mayor were a firm advocate of change.

Citizenship would remain a privilege associated with voting in federal and provincial elections. This would still be something special. It makes sense to set a lower requirement for voting at the municipal level, where the issues aren’t national security or foreign policy concerns but more mundane matters such as garbage collection, water bills, transit fares and whether the Gardiner Expressway is torn down.

Non-citizens have become a vital component of Canada’s largest city, helping to make it one of the most diverse places in the world. These people should no longer be written off on Election Day.

Let non-citizens vote in municipal elections: Editorial | Toronto Star.

Immigration policy will be part of election conversation, opposition says | Toronto Star

Pretty skimpy on the details, given the range of changes implemented by the Conservative government.

We may see more precision when the electoral platforms are released, however the tone is markedly different:

Immigration policy under the Conservative party’s watch has changed substantially, with many rules and regulations making it harder for refugees and immigrants to make Canada their home.

The Tories’ tough-on-immigration stance has won over some ethnic groups; others are less than keen. Critics in Parliament have argued vigorously against the changes. But the Tories argue that their changes have saved taxpayers money, streamlined processes, cut waiting times and stopped “bogus” refugees. A spokesman for the Minister of Immigration Chris Alexander said he wasn’t available to talk to the Star to discuss the changes or what lies ahead.

But according to University of Toronto’s assistant political science professor Erin Tolley, immigration rarely makes it as a central election issue because it “has the potential to alienate.”

But this time around both the Liberal and the NDP say they are going to make immigration policy part of the election conversation.

Key points:

NDP:

  • family reunification emphasis
  • loosening of citizenship language test requirements
  • more welcoming approach to refugees

Liberals:

  • Restore pre-Permanent Residence time 50 percent credit for citizenship
  • Repeal intent to reside provision
  • Reduce overall processing times
  • Commit to larger number of refugees, strengthen due process
  • Not assume “every second person is a criminal”

Interesting that revocation not mentioned.

Immigration policy will be part of election conversation, opposition says | Toronto Star.

Another Front in the Fight Against FATCA: The Alliance for the Defence of Canadian Sovereignty

Victoria Ferauge, who writes extensively about FATCA and its impact on US expatriates, provides an update on the lawsuit against the Government of Canada’s implementation of FATCA by the Alliance for the Defense of Canadian Sovereignty (ADCS):

The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act is, in its own weird way, a kind of census.  Among other things, it tells the American government where those it considers to be taxable under US law live and work and raise families.

Having tried and failed miserably at conducting an accurate census of Americans abroad, the American government looked for other ways to find those “US Persons” (a term that includes US residents and Green Card holders, as well as US citizens).  Their method was delegation – an admission of failure in a sense – because FATCA requires foreign financial institutions (FFIs) to do what the US government couldn’t manage to accomplish on its own:  to seek out all US persons in the world: their names, addresses, and account balances.

Those of you who have already been FATCAed, know all too well what that means.  Those of you who have not yet signed a W-9 or had your accounts closed, please don’t feel left out, your time will come.

Americans abroad organizations like AARO, ACA, Democrats abroad and Republicans Overseas are fighting FATCA and you can read about their efforts here.

But I would be remiss if I did not mention other efforts which are equally important.  The one I have been following (and cheering on) is the other lawsuit filed in Canada by the Alliance for the Defense of Canadian Sovereignty (ADCS).

This is a grassroots initiative that pushes back against FATCA in Canada. ADCS argues that the Canadian legislation that implements the FATCA intergovernmental agreement with the United States “violates the Canadian Constitution, Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the principles of Canadian sovereignty and democracy, and the fundamental rights of all Canadians.”

By signing an agreement to turn over the private information of Canadian citizens to a foreign government (the United States) the Canadian government is violating, they say, the rights of those whom the US is unilaterally claiming as taxable US Persons, but who consider themselves to be Canadians first and foremost.  They reject utterly the idea that another country can simply demand that Canada provide the private information of individuals who have some connection to the United States, however nebulous it may be.

The plaintiffs in the case are two Canadian women “who have never held a U.S. passport or developed any meaningful relationship with the U.S.” but who are, nonetheless, considered to be US citizens by virtue of being born in the US.”  They never consented to that citizenship and see no reason why it should be foisted on them now just because the US says so.

There are citizens in just about every country in the world right now who are in exactly the same position as the two plaintiffs:  people who thought they were “just French” living in France or “just Thai ” living in Thailand.  Many are finding out that they are indeed US Persons when they receive a note from their local banks informing them that they appear to be US citizens under US law.

I could not think of a worse way (or a worse source) for someone to learn that he or she might be a US citizen.  I find this not just shameful on the part of the US, but an extreme and worrisome delegation of sovereign power.  Foreign financial institutions should not be in any way arbiters of US citizenship or status, or be tasked with implementing a US extraterritorial national census of any sort for any purpose whatsoever.

Among the different fronts against FATCA, this is a very worthy effort because it asks a nation-state like Canada to take a stand:  Are these people claimed by the US really Canadian citizens with all the right enumerated in the Charter? Or has the Canadian government downgraded them to semi-citizenship status based on the claims of a foreign power?

Funded entirely by small donors, ADCS has miraculously raised enough money so far to hire very competent legal counsel, and on August 14, 2014 they filed their suit in Canadian Federal Court.  I back them 100% and have contributed even though I am not an “Accidental American” or even a dual.

The Franco-American Flophouse: Another Front in the Fight Against FATCA: The Alliance for the Defence of Canadian Sovereignty.

Lebanon’s Sexist Citizenship Law Mothers, Babies

On the inability of Lebanese women to pass on their citizenship to their children if the father in non-Lebanese:

A study conducted by the American University of Beirut showed that the vast majority of Lebanese people surveyed supported Lebanese women’ passing on their citizenship to their Palestinian children and, to a slightly lesser degree, to their Palestinian husbands. Ultimately, as Abou Habib puts it, “The right of Lebanese women should not be a matter of political debate.”

Lebanon is not the only country to prohibit women from passing on their citizenship. It’s not even the only Arab country to do so. But unlike other Arab states, Lebanon considers itself a beacon of liberalism in the Middle East, the place where East meets West. Lebanon cannot claim to uphold Western values while continuing to deny women equal rights.

Countries far less liberal than Lebanon, such as the United Arab Emirates and Egypt, have made provisions to prevent statelessness. Children of Emirati women and foreign men, for example, can apply for citizenship after they reach the age of 18. Egypt, a country known for its culture of sexism, has granted women the full right to pass their citizenship on to their children.

I am proud to be Lebanese. So is my childhood friend. We identify as such. We want our children to be Lebanese, regardless of who their fathers are. Being Lebanese is being part of a community. It is being part of a people who have a zest for life, a kindness, a humor and a resilience. It is being part of my family. We want to be celebrated in Lebanon on Mother’s Day. But how can we keep ties to a country that creates so many hurdles for our children? How can we instill in them a sense of Lebanese pride if the country won’t acknowledge them as their own?

Lebanon’s Sexist Citizenship Law Mothers, Babies | Al Jazeera America.

USA: Citizenship for Sale

On the US business immigration program. Similar issues as in the previous Canadian program:

Now let’s turn to the United States. Under the EB-5 visa program, foreigners can obtain a green card and then citizenship by making a small investment—$1 million, or $500,000 if it’s in an area with high unemployment—that will create or preserve 10 jobs for U.S. workers. Foreign investors can funnel their funds through “regional centers,” which are private organizations that finance commercial projects. These centers spare investors the trouble of figuring out for themselves whether an area suffers from high unemployment and whether a specific investment would generate the requisite 10 jobs.
The program is a mess. The government “is unable to demonstrate the benefits of foreign investment into the U.S. economy” under the program, in the words of the Inspector General of Homeland Security. Among other things, it’s almost impossible to figure out whether a specific investment generates jobs rather than reshuffles them from one place to another. There have also been examples of outright fraud and political cronyism. Part of the problem is a lack of documentation but the real problem is that the program is misconceived.
When we think about investment, the starting point is that investors don’t need citizenship or any other inducement to put money into a project when they will earn higher than the market rate of return. So given the risk and other opportunities, someone will invest $1 million or more in a mall complex or housing development if the expected return is, say, 10 or 15 percent. Many foreigners make such investments, and the vast majority of them make them not to obtain citizenship but to make money. In 2013, they ponied up $236 billion. Meanwhile, Americans invested another $2.5 trillion in the economy. At most $10 billion can be attributed to foreigners who seek visas, and probably a lot less.
The EB-5 program, then, just pumps up aggregate foreign investment in the United States by a few tenths of a percent per year. Given the size and liquidity of capital markets, the program has reduced the cost of capital by an infinitesimal amount, basically zero. A tiny reduction in the cost of capital might produce a tiny increase in the number of jobs, but most likely it will produce a tiny increase in profits for other investors or tiny reductions in price for consumers. It’s a bit like saying that you can immigrate to the United States if you buy a few cars from a domestic auto dealer at a price slightly higher than what the dealer is charging.

The New Progressive Agenda: A Return to Citizenship

Toni Morrison on the difference between citizens and taxpayers:

Remember when we used to be called “citizens”? There were levels of citizenship, certainly, but we were citizens nonetheless. “I am an American citizen” was our proud boast. Then, following World War II, the prosperous decades began, and we were called “consumers.” The American consumer wants; the American consumer needs — and consume we did. Items that were once luxuries became necessities, and, unlike our great-grandparents, we were ashamed to have only one pair of shoes or one Sunday dress. Being a consumer is not without pleasure or comfort. Yet now we are identified by a brand-new label, one that floods political speech, pundit themes, and media headlines: “taxpayer.” It seems that that definition is all we are.
The difference between understanding oneself as a citizen and understanding oneself as a taxpayer is not merely wide; it is antagonistic. A citizen thinks primarily about his or her community and is preoccupied with the safety of the neighborhood, the health of the elderly and disabled, the well-being of the young. A taxpayer thinks mostly about himself or herself, about who or what is taxing — that is to say “taking” — his hard-earned money to give to some undeserving body or some other distant, wasteful thing.
The Progressive Agenda seeks to return us to citizenship, the happily adult responsibility of being citizens to each other. It’s concerned with how to ensure a livable wage for all of us; how to improve schools in all our neighborhoods; how to protect working-class jobs and pensions from predators who rely on exploitation and selfish behavior; how to welcome the immigrant, the “huddled masses” we all (except for Native Americans and slaves) once were.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/toni-morrison/the-new-progressive-agenda-a-return-to-citizenship_b_7265416.html

Stephen Harper won’t allow ‘permanent underclass’ of temporary foreign workers

Welcome reaffirmation of the value of immigration, leading to citizenship, rather than more temporary status.

However, a bit ironic, given that some of the changes to the citizenship program are leading to a greater share of some visible minority groups who are likely to remain permanent residents, unable to attain citizenship with the full panoply of rights that entails.

Harper said his government wants to make sure that immigrants were not filling jobs that Canadians could do.

“Just as importantly, we’re making sure that when people come to this country to work and to work long-term, they have the ability to move towards being permanent citizens of this country,” he said.

“This country is not going to have a policy, as long as I’m prime minister, where we will have a permanent underclass of … people who are so-called temporary, but here forever, with no rights of citizenship and no rights of mobility.

“That is not the Canadian way we do immigration. So we’re going to make sure that program does not drift in that direction,” he said.

Stephen Harper won’t allow ‘permanent underclass’ of temporary foreign workers – Politics – CBC News.

En niqab à sa cérémonie de citoyenneté

This week in Montreal.

She unveiled her face however when making the oath which reflects a certain willingness to compromise, even if the niqab still sends an overall signal of separation, not integration:

Latin American présence d’une candidate citoyenne vêtue d’un tel voile intégral est rarissime, selon une source gouvernementale.

La toute nouvelle citoyenne canadienne a toutefois respecté les règles en vigueur et s’est découvert le visage pendant quelques instants, le temps de prêter serment.

Certaines personnes dans l’audience ont ressenti un malaise face à la présence du niqab, ce voile intégral qui n’est percé que d’une étroite fente pour permettre la vision. Mais aucun esclandre n’est venu troubler la cérémonie, qui s’est tenue mercredi matin.

La femme était accompagnée d’un homme et de deux enfants. La cérémonie, tenue mercredi dernier au Centre hellénique de Montréal de Côte-des-Neiges, réunissait plus d’une centaine de personnes. Les individus sur le point de devenir citoyens canadiens étaient tour à tour appelés à l’avant de la salle pour prêter serment à la reine et au Canada.

«Ce sont des cas très, très, très rares, a indiqué une source gouvernementale. C’est minime, sur le nombre de cérémonies qui se tiennent.»

En niqab à sa cérémonie de citoyenneté | Philippe Teisceira-Lessard | National.

A Record Number of Americans Are Renouncing Their Citizenship

Expat-ExpressWhile the numbers are small, the trend is clear:

People giving up their nationality at U.S. embassies rose to 1,062 in the fourth quarter from 776 in the year-earlier period, according to Federal Register data. That’s the highest quarterly total since the second quarter of 2013, according to Bloomberg News calculations based on records starting in 1998.

The annual total reached 3,415 in 2014, from 3,000 in the year-earlier period, according to Federal Register data. The five highest totals have been recorded since the U.S. Congress passed the 2010 law.

There are an estimated 6 million U.S. citizens living abroad. More than 10,000 Americans living overseas have given up their passports over the past five years.

A Record Number of Americans Are Renouncing Their Citizenship – Bloomberg Business.

New Un-American Record: Renouncing U.S. Citizenship