If you are in trouble abroad, will Canada come get you?

2023/05/09 Leave a comment

Good realistic explainer featuring the former ambassador to Lebanon:

It was Louis de Lorimier’s first posting as an ambassador for Canada when he arrived in Lebanon in September 2005, after almost a quarter-century in the foreign service.

His appointment came just a few months after then Lebanese prime minister Rafic Hariri was assassinated in a truck bombing, and the relationship between Israel, the militant group Hezbollah and neighbouring Syria was tense.

Political and military skirmishes between the various forces in the region were not uncommon, but de Lorimier didn’t foresee he would be caught at the centre of Operation LION, Canada’s largest international evacuation effort of its citizens to date.

“You did have violence to a certain extent on the border but nothing could suggest that it would go so far,” recalls the retired career diplomat, now a fellow at the Montreal Institute of International Studies.

“Lebanon was a turning point. I think they really got the (evacuation) system much better organized after that.”

In July 2006, after Israel’s military attacked Hezbollah forces in Lebanon to retaliate for the killing and kidnapping of its soldiers, Ottawa came under heavy fire for what some criticized as chaotic and slow response to bring home its citizens stranded in the war zone. By the end of that August, 14,000 Canadians had been evacuated.

Nearly 17 years later, after a civil war erupted in Sudan between the ruling government and a paramilitary group, the Canadian government’s evacuation effort has once again raised the questions of its responsibilities to its citizens abroad and its readiness to save its people from harm’s way.

Last Saturday, Canada ended its evacuation flights to bring Canadians home from Sudan amid escalating violence and deteriorating safety conditions. Over two weeks, of the 1,728 Canadians in Sudan who had registered with the government, more than 400 had been evacuated, with hundreds of others still looking for assistance.

“Canada continues to monitor the situation actively and will continue to provide assistance to Canadians and permanent residents wishing to depart Sudan,” Global Affairs Canada said in a statement on Friday.

“Our officials will keep in contact with those who call on us for help. We will keep in touch using whatever is the most effective way to help them stay safe, be it phone, e-mail or text message.”

De Lorimier said taking care of Canadians abroad has always been a top priority for consular staff, who constantly monitor conditions on the ground and report them to Ottawa.

“One of our responsibilities is to have a plan in place to deal with social unrests and major events of that nature, or it could be earthquakes or natural disasters, and it goes as far as war,” said de Lorimier, who headed the Lebanese mission until 2008 and then served as ambassador to Belgium and Mali before he retired in 2015.

“But what is obvious is that Canada doesn’t have the assets in the region to deal as quickly as we have to deal with a huge crisis.”

There are many variables in an evacuation effort and officials have to constantly negotiate with the local security authorities to seek safe pathways for both Canada’s personnel and citizens alike.

“I think most people do have unreasonable expectations. Sure, your government is there to protect you in every way possible. Obviously, it’s what we try to do. But the government also tells people, ‘Well, you’re responsible for your own safety first and foremost,’” said de Lorimier.

“If you go to a place where there’s social unrest, or even war, well, there could be consequences. There’s only so much we can do. That’s why we have these warnings that in certain countries, you’d better be careful. It’s not that the government doesn’t want to take care of people. But sometimes you have situations where you just can’t.”

The operation in Lebanon was certainly unprecedented in terms of the scale. At the onset of the war, only 1,000 Canadians registered with the embassy, which quickly ballooned to 30,000 a week into the conflict.

Although Lebanon was under complete blockade by the Israelis who bombed the main runway at the airport and blew up its fuel depots, Canada’s strong diplomatic relationships with both countries assured safe pathways to bus its citizens to an evacuation spot and then repatriate them via Cyprus.

In Sudan, however, de Lorimier said Canadian officials are dealing with two warring parties declaring ceasefires that never hold, and there’s a complete breakdown in the rule of law. The only blessing is the main airport in the capital Khartoum seems to be working of late, letting Canada shift its emergency evacuation efforts toward assisted departures through commercial transportation to exit the country.

Still, de Lorimier said there still could be a lot of uncertainty.

For example, on the first day of the Lebanese evacuation, the Canadian government had initially secured six ships to each carry 250 people out of the Lebanon’s main port. However, at the last minute, the Turkish company that loaned the boats was not satisfied with the security assurances and decided to send just one ship.

“We had prepared more than 1,000 people to evacuate. That’s when the press reported in Canada that the operation was a mess. We got really bad press. Some people were complaining that we left them out in the sun and they didn’t have water and they didn’t have food. It was quite something,” recalled de Lorimier, who didn’t sleep for weeks then and was running on his adrenalin.

“We almost had a catastrophe because we had this 1,000 people that were waiting in a room. We weren’t expecting to give them room and board for a night. So you can imagine kids running around and older people, and we didn’t even have enough restrooms.”

Canada recognizes dual citizenships and dual citizens are treated equally as their Canadian-born peers, but the Lebanese evacuation led to a public debate about whether these individuals’ birth country or adopted country is actually responsible for them.

“If there’s a problem, is it not logical that he be supported by his birth country before being supported by the consular service of Canada, his country of adoption?” asked de Lorimier. Yet in the end, “anyone that had Canadian papers was evacuated.”

The evacuation effort would end up costing Canada $94 million, which also prompted prime minister Stephen Harper’s Conservative government in 2009 to restrict the passage of Canadian citizenship by descent to the first generation of Canadians born overseas.

In its post-mortem of the Lebanese operation, the Canadian Senate, made many recommendations, including urging Foreign Affairs officials to review and ensure adequate resources to missions in countries where the size of the Canadian population and regional risks are high.

In hindsight, de Lorimier said he felt the Lebanese operation was provided with proper resources, with 200 Foreign Affairs staffers redeployed from outside Lebanon to assist with the evacuation, along with additional immigration and military personnel.

“People will always say there’s not enough resources. That’s a tricky question. We evacuated 15,000 people and everybody made it … no casualties,” he noted.

“The first responsibility lies with you. You have to know what you’re getting into and where you’re going in terms of security, military and war and even tsunamis or earthquakes. There’s so many risks that you have to figure out and decide if you want to take the risk.”

Source: If you are in trouble abroad, will Canada come get you?

Filed under Dual Citizenship, foreign policy Tagged with ,

Bahamas: How to prove paternity is next as govt to grapple with citizenship questions

2023/05/08 Leave a comment

CHILDREN born out of wedlock to Bahamian men and foreign women won’t be recognised as citizens of The Bahamas until they prove that their biological father is a Bahamian through a process mandated by the government or determined by the courts.

How to prove paternity is a question the Davis administration will grapple with as it seeks to satisfy the expectation of people who now see themselves as Bahamian citizens following the Privy Council’s landmark ruling. The administration can address the matter through legislation.

Attorney General Ryan Pinder told The Tribune: “Needless to say, you have to prove that your biological father is Bahamian, which means you have to prove paternity. A framework needs to be put in place for that.”

When Chief Justice Ian Winder ruled in favour of Shannon Rolle in 2020, he deliberately left the question of how to establish paternity unanswered.

Former Attorney General Sean McSweeney, the co-chair of the 2016 Constitutional Commission, said yesterday that requiring scientific tests is the ideal approach to establishing paternity.

“You always have to prove that the man is the father if it doesn’t happen in the context of marriage,” he said. “There are some who are saying they should just use an affidavit, but given the historical laxity with which Bahamians used affidavits, I think it would be dangerous to rely on that. There really should be scientific proof of paternity; at the moment DNA testing.”

“There will have to be steps taken to guard against abuse of the system. You certainly don’t want an industry being created out of this where people feel they could just get an affidavit of paternity and just get citizenship on that basis.”

Mr McWenney said in cases where a person’s father is dead, DNA tests could be performed “on anything the deceased person may have used”.

“You have to ask a scientist about that: how do you go about extracting the materials used for DNA testing?” he said.

National Security Minister Wayne Munroe, who tried the landmark case before Chief Justice Ian Winder and the Court of Appeal, said people who will benefit from the Privy Council’s ruling must now be patient so the government can address the paternity issue.

“The matter isn’t fully resolved as far as this is concerned,” he said. “There were two issues. The first issue was a matter of principle, the construction of Article 6, and that’s what’s been settled, that Article 6 means that a child of an unwed Bahamian father born in The Bahamas is a citizen.

“The part that isn’t resolved that the Chief Justice has to determine because it was referred back to him by the Privy Council, is how do you prove that your father is a Bahamian? Is it enough for your father to come up and say it? Does he have to do an affidavit? Does he have to sign your birth certificate or do you have to have DNA evidence? That hasn’t been decided. In the Supreme Court case that I did, it expressly said that issue is not being decided and it will await this outcome.

“If you go and dash to the Passport Office, they’re gonna consult the OAG and OAG will no doubt take a position. It would be irresponsible not to take a policy position which can apply to everyone, and so as the lawyer who did the initial case and the initial appeal, now as a member of the government, I would advise caution and a degree of patience while the government puts in place the policy to address that issue of paternity, because in reality, there’s no value in saying you’re going to rush and pressure the government because if you don’t get a passport, what can you do? Bring an action. Then you have to wait for a court date and the rest of that. It’s just as easy for you to wait and see how the government will bring about the matter.”

It is unclear what the DNA testing capacity is in The Bahamas.

“I think the Immigration Department and the Office of the Attorney General is going to have to treat with that to bring forward a solution,” Mr Munroe said. “There are a number of things that no doubt the government of which I am a member will be considering going forward and once it’s considered, then, of course, if it’s by virtue of legislation, we’d have to table a bill and the public would be able to see it and give their views.”

Source: How to prove paternity is next as govt to grapple with citizenship …

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with ,

Russia forces occupied Ukrainians to change citizenship

2023/05/06 Leave a comment

Citizenship warfare and erasing identity:

A convoy of empty buses sweeps into a town, alongside members of Russia’s domestic intelligence agency FSB. They cite a decree issued by the Russian president regarding the deportation of anyone without Russian citizenship from the occupied territories. “They radically demand that people either give up their Ukrainian passport in favor of a Russian one, or their property will be confiscated immediately and they will be resettled,” according to the Ukrainian military.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has signed a decree according to which citizens of Ukraine living in the Russian-occupied parts of Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Luhansk and Donetsk who wish to keep their Ukrainian citizenship can only stay there until July 1, 2024. After that, they can be deported from those occupied regions.

“Constant threats”

DW spoke to people from the occupied parts of the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions who confirmed that Ukrainians are being forced to take Russian passports. For security reasons, none of the people want to be named.

“Russian soldiers searched everything in our house. When I showed my Ukrainian passport, they shouted that I should change it for a Russian one, and that otherwise my car would be taken away, and I would be deported,” an elderly man from near Kherson said.

A woman from the Zaporizhzhia region was in tears as she recounted how Russian occupiers threatened to deport her young children to Russia if she didn’t immediately apply for a Russian passport.

Another woman was threatened by Russian soldiers who “put a bag over her head” because she refused to change citizenship. “We held out until the end, we didn’t want to accept a Russian passport. But it’s just unbearable and scary,” the woman from near the Azov Sea told DW.

Why the rush?

The first deputy chairman of the Kherson regional council, Yuriy Sobolevsky, said the pressure on the people living in the occupied territories has recently increased significantly. “Access to medical care and freedom of movement between cities will be restricted for those who refuse to accept Russian passports,” he said. He thinks the Russians are now resorting to terror because not as many people in those territories want to become Russian citizens as Moscow had hoped.

According to the British Ministry of Defense, Moscow apparently wants to speed up the integration of the occupied territories into Russia to sell the invasion of Ukraine as a success to its own people, particularly in the run-up to the 2024 presidential election.

But people are afraid of ending up in Russian databases, a young man from Khrustalnyi in the Luhansk region told DW. He’s from an area which has been occupied since as early as 2014. Many don’t know what to do. “More and more employers are demanding a Russian passport,” the young man explained. But anyone who applies for a Russian “residence permit” is handing themselves over to the occupying forces. Then there is also the risk of being drafted into the war.

Conflicting signals from Kyiv

Should people have a Russian passport forced on them or not? There are conflicting takes on this among Ukrainian politicians. Dmytro Lubinets, human rights commissioner in the Ukrainian parliament, said on TV that Ukrainians in the occupied territories should accept Russian passports if they fear for their lives. He stressed that Ukraine does not recognize such forced passports and that it would not mean that they lose their Ukrainian citizenship.

However, the Minister for Reintegration of the Temporarily Occupied Territories, Mychajlo Podoljak, said Ukrainians should not accept Russian passports. “Do not cooperate with the occupiers, do not accept Russian passports, flee if possible or wait for our army,” she said on TV.

Life under occupation not a crime

“I’m ashamed and afraid to accept a Russian passport, but I’m also afraid of being deported,” said one desperate woman from the occupied part of the Kherson region. “We can’t leave, as the Ukrainian authorities advise us, because we have an old, sick mother.”

According to Alyona Lunyova from Ukraine’s ZMNINA Human Rights Center, the contradictory advice from Ukrainian officials is confusing people. She stressed that living under occupation is not a crime. “On the contrary, not everyone should leave the occupied territories, it shouldn’t become an empty country and we cannot take in four to five million people from there.” She added that it is not a crime to accept a Russian passport under duress.

Meanwhile, an adviser to Ukraine’s presidential office, Mykhailo Podolyak, said Lubinets’ and Vereshchuk’s advice was not contradictory. He tweeted this advice for Ukrainians in the occupied territories: “If it is possible not to take a Russian passport, then try not to take one. But if you have to take a Russian passport to avoid oppression and torture, then take one.”

Podolyak stressed that Ukraine would not persecute citizens who “passively obtained Russian citizenship.”

Source: Russia forces occupied Ukrainians to change citizenship

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with , , ,

Federal government strips religious symbols from crown adorning Royal Coat of Arms

2023/05/04 Leave a comment

Another relatively easy measure although agree better to have public consultation:

The Trudeau government is set to use the Coronation of King Charles III on Saturday as an opportunity to reveal a new design for the Canadian crown that sits on the Royal Coat of Arms.

Sources say the St. Edward’s Cross that has been part of the Coat of Arms since 1957 — and on a myriad of police and military badges across the country — will be replaced by what critics are calling “the Trudeau Crown,” a new design created by the Canadian Heraldic Authority, the body responsible for granting coats of arms in this country.

People who have seen the design say it replaces all Christian and religious symbols (crosses and fleur-de-lis) with maple leafs, snowflakes and stars, leading to claims that the Liberal government has politicized the symbol of the Crown and the Royal Coat of Arms.

“It means the proposed Canadian crown is totally unconnected to the King or the coronation, and it means the unity of the symbol of the Royal Crown that represents the sovereign throughout the realms will be broken, further distancing the King and the monarchy as an institution,” said Christopher McCreery, an author and historian with expertise on Canada’s relationship with the Crown.

“In essence, it is akin to a new national flag being raised on Canada Day, with no consultation or debate, developed in secret by those who wish to advance their personal vision of the country.”

Sovereigns have the right to choose which style of Royal Cross will represent their reign on coats of arms, coins, medals and other symbols of authority.

On Sept. 26 last year, Buckingham Palace announced that the new King would be represented by a Tudor Crown, instead of the St. Edward’s Crown used by his late mother, Queen Elizabeth.

Officials in Ottawa saw the announcement as an opportunity to introduce a new “Canadian Crown” and, over time, reinvent the supreme symbol of Canada, the Royal Coat of Arms.

The move is likely to provoke traditionalists, just as a similarly unilateral change upset conservatives in the mid-1990s. Then, Jean Chrétien’s Liberal government added a Latin inscription taken from the outer ring of the Order of Canada medal to the Coat of Arms: “Desiderantes Meliorem Patriam” (Desiring a better country).

Lack of consultation resulted in blowback in the House of Commons, where then Reform Party Leader Preston Manning asked then Heritage Minister Michel Dupuy who Canadian symbols belonged to: “To the sovereign, to the government, to some Liberal backbencher or to the people of Canada? Why were the people of Canada not consulted and involved in changes to the Canadian Coat of Arms?”

Such changes require the approval of the monarch but King Charles would have had little option but to say yes, if the new design was promoted on the advice of the Canadian government.

McCreery said there is a case to be made for adding some Indigenous symbols to Canada’s Coat of Arms “but this should be done cautiously and consultatively.”

The government could not provide comment on any consultations with Buckingham Palace by time of publication.

The Royal Coat of Arms was adopted by proclamation of King George V in 1921 and initially used the Tudor-style crown. In 1952, Queen Elizabeth adopted the St. Edward’s Crown, but it was not until 1957 that the government of Canada added it to the Canadian Royal Coat of Arms.

Aside from the addition of the Latin inscription in 1995, it has remained unchanged ever since.

Source: Federal government strips religious symbols from crown adorning Royal Coat of Arms

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with ,

Time is right to scrap requirement to swear oath to the King, MPs and Senators say

2023/05/03 Leave a comment

Easy to agree, virtually impossible to implement and a distraction from more fundamental issues. However, the citizenship oath could be changed as former immigration minister Marchi tried to do in the 90s:

As King Charles prepares for his coronation at Westminster Abbey on Saturday, some senators and Liberal, NDP and Bloc Quebecois MPs want to abolish the federal requirement that parliamentarians pledge loyalty to the monarch. Instead, they say, office-holders should have the option of swearing an oath to Canada, or the Canadian people.

MPs and senators have to swear or affirm an oath to “be faithful and bear true allegiance” to the British monarch before taking their seats in Parliament after an election. They can’t sit if they refuse. The obligation dates back to the Constitution Act of 1867.

The oath is also taken by people with official positions across Canada, including judges, RCMP officers and members of the armed forces. New Canadians likewise pledge loyalty to the Crown at their citizenship ceremonies. The oath used to be sworn to Queen Elizabeth, until her death last year. It is now sworn to the new King.

Quebec Liberal MP Joel Lightbound said he has sworn an oath to the monarch three times since first being elected. “Having an alternative to swearing allegiance to the British Crown would have made me very happy,” he said.

“In my opinion federal elected officials should have the choice to swear or not swear allegiance to the Crown in future.”

Ontario NDP MP Charlie Angus said he was “personally astounded” when he first found out he had to swear allegiance to the British monarch as a requirement of taking his seat in Parliament. He said he imagined his late Scottish grandmother, an avowed republican, striking him with lightning for doing so.

He said it is “simply not credible” that the only obligation in the oath is to the Crown, not Canadians.

Reviewing the oath is a “very legitimate conversation” to have as the new King is crowned, he said.

Ontario NDP MP Matthew Green agreed. “An oath to an overseas monarch in perpetuity is increasingly outdated,” he said.

He added that he and many other Canadians “would be more comfortable with an oath that reflects the allegiance to the Constitution and the people of Canada.”

“While tradition is an important part of our culture and identity, from time to time it’s healthy to review these traditions and determine whether or not they still reflect our current values,” he said.

Senator Tony Dean, a former head of the Ontario Public Service, also said an oath to the monarch “seems dated” today.

“Of course the oath could be refreshed or replaced,” he said. But he noted that, because the oath is entrenched in the Constitution, changing it could require a constitutional amendment.

Michael Wernick, a former head of the federal public service and a former a senior official in constitutional affairs, said revisiting the oath with 220 parliamentary sitting days left until the next election would be “a huge waste of energy.”

“There’s more important things to focus on,” he said.

But New Brunswick Liberal MP René Arseneault, who is of Acadian heritage, said creating an alternative to the oath for MPs and senators who don’t want to swear allegiance to the Crown is “doable.”

Mr. Arseneault successfully challenged a requirement to swear an oath to the Queen when he joined the bar in New Brunswick. He was the first lawyer in the province not to do so.

“In 2023, there must be a way to modify this,” he said. “For me the best solution is a choice.”

Bloc Quebecois MPs want Parliament to follow the lead of the Quebec National Assembly, which in December unanimously passed a law scrapping the oath requirement for its elected members. Three members of the Parti Quebecois had refused to swear the oath after the October provincial election, and had been barred from sitting as a result.

Bloc House Leader Alain Therrien said Canada is “becoming more and more anti-monarchist,” in part because Canadians don’t feel the same attachment to the King as they did to the Queen. He said there should be a debate about Canada’s ties to the monarchy, including the oath.

“We are against having to swear this oath,” he said. “The monarchy is an institution that is out of date.”

Quebec Senator Julie Miville-Dechêne also questioned the need for the oath. “The time has come to at least have a choice … to swear to the monarch or to Canada,” she said.

“I would prefer to swear to the people of Canada.”

Source: Time is right to scrap requirement to swear oath to the King, MPs and Senators say

Filed under Citizenship, Government Tagged with ,

Australia/New Zealand agreement: Citizenship celebration turns sour in record time

2023/05/01 Leave a comment

Always interesting to see the reactions when a long-standing irritant is resolved, provoking in the smaller country:

For 22 years, media stories regularly bemoaned Kiwis treated as second class citizens across the ditch. This week, the problem finally got resolved, only for coverage to turn to fears of a ‘Great Exodus’ within hours.​

In November last year 1News correspondent Andrew MacFarlane asked Australian home affairs minister Clare O’Neill why her government was treating New Zealanders as “second-class citizens”.

“That’s a really good question and that’s something that’s been bothering me for a long time,” she said.

Her frank concession came after years of reports about the perilous legal status of New Zealanders living long-term across the ditch.

They have been denied disability payments, jobseeker support and student loan services in Australia since the introduction of a 2001 law limiting their pathways to citizenship.

That has resulted in hardship and complaints about unequal treatment.

Back in 2011, Kiwis living in Australia were denied government assistance after being caught up in the Queensland floods.

A Stuff story at the time picked up on the plight of Jayde Fuli, who was facing financial ruin due to a lack of assistance from the Australian government.

In 2014, Stuff reported on a sick toddler who was denied healthcare in Australia because his parents were Kiwis, despite him having never set foot in New Zealand.

It also published an investigation on what it called discrimination across the ditch in 2018, highlighting the case of a woman who fell into depression and drug addiction after being unable to access support following the death of her child.

This coverage has been matched in other media, which have consistently called out the Australian government for collecting New Zealanders’ taxes but failing to offer them the same rights as other citizens.

Given that, prime minister Chris Hipkins was probably expecting a glowing reception and a run of good press when he stepped up to a media scrum last weekend to announce a new citizenship pathway for Kiwis living in the lucky country.

“It is a very significant day for the trans-Tasman relationship, a very positive day for the relationship between New Zealand and Australia,” he said.

There was some positive coverage for the move on the front pages of the Weekend Herald, The Press and The Dominion Post.

But as it turns out, putting an end to a 22-year problem only wins you about six hours of good headlines.

By early Saturday afternoon, a less celebratory angle was starting to cut through on the websites of our major news organisations.

Both the Herald and Stuff ran stories about a potential “exodus” of New Zealand workers to Australia following the citizenship change.

Those worries amped up the following day.

The Sunday Star-Times carried two profiles of New Zealanders packing their bags and moving across the ditch.

Its editor Tracy Watkins accompanied those with a stinging editorial about the “big fish hook” in the Australia citizenship deal, which ended: “Will the last one to leave please turn off the lights?”.

On Wednesday TVNZ’s Seven Sharp joined the chorus warning that Australia is stealing our workers, just like they did with our best horse and our sweet treats.

“We’re used to Australia taking things from us: Phar Lapp, pav, Crowded House, and don’t forget lamingtons,” said presenter Jeremy Wells.

“Well it turns out they’re at it again: this time it’s Aussie employers trying to poach hard-working Kiwis,” added Hilary Barry.

That may have been a bit tongue in cheek, and Seven Sharp’s story delivered a useful comparison of the wages and conditions workers can expect in New Zealand and Australia.

In The New Zealand Herald commentator Richard Prebble was less constrained by facts, figures, or indeed reality, writing that New Zealand is “becoming a third-world country”, and Australia is only changing its citizenship rules to “strip this country of our best”.

The overarching theme of the coverage was that getting a better deal in Australia might leave some New Zealanders with little reason to stay here, and the rest of us worse off as a result.

There’s one small problem with that assertion: it doesn’t appear to have much – if any – real data underpinning it.

The economist Shamubeel Eaqub noted emigration to Australia peaked in 2013, and has since dropped off.

Infometrics chief executive Brad Olsen told AM a pathway to citizenship probably won’t be the biggest draw for New Zealanders thinking of heading across the Tasman.

“I don’t know if it moves the dial considerably on Kiwis wanting to move over to Australia. There are already a lot of reasons why people have been considering doing so.” he said.

At the least it’s too early to say whether there is – in Stuff’s words – a Great Exodus underway.

Other commentators criticised the negativity of the coverage.

The media isn’t a behemoth with a unified perspective, but politicians and news audiences could be tempted to feel like they’ve been the victim of a bait and switch after seeing 20 years of stories highlighting a pressing human rights issue, only to immediately see lines like about the government being “played like a didgeridoo” when it gets resolved.

At Newstalk ZB, afternoon host Heather du Plessis said she couldn’t get behind the backlash.

“There are a bunch of commentators who are seeing negative in Australia’s immigration announcement. I totally disagree with them. This is one of the most positive and significant changes for New Zealand in the ANZAC relationship. I don’t believe it’s going to lead to a significant brain drain. That brain drain’s already happening,” she said.

In The Guardian, commentator and former Stuff political reporter Henry Cooke took aim at those trying to paint the deal as a bad thing, saying their arguments “do New Zealand a disservice”.

He said people should focus on making New Zealand better for workers, rather than making sure Australia is worse.

“The answer to this challenge shouldn’t be just trying to build the walls up higher or guilt Kiwis into staying. It should be making New Zealand as good a place to live as Australia with comparable (or better) incomes and working conditions,” he wrote.

Cooke noted that Australia consistently pays out a higher proportion of its GDP in wages.

Figures produced by AUT's 2023 survey on trust in media.

Figures produced by AUT’s 2023 survey on trust in media. Photo: AUT

But analysis of why that is – and how to put New Zealand on par – has been limited, and the media bemoaning the trans-Tasman wage discrepancy might have done more to look at what’s actually behind it.

For instance, Australia has better productivity than New Zealand’s, lower taxes on low and middle income workers, a higher minimum wage, and a longstanding Modern Awards System similar to the Fair Pay Agreements legislation recently introduced here.

A deep dive into those topics might have been more useful than articles on whether we got played by making sure sick and otherwise out-of-luck New Zealanders can access support from the Australian government.

Maybe the quick turn toward pessimism was predictable.

Negativity bias in the news is an extensively studied phenomenon.

It’s pervasive, and not only in stories on Australian citizenship. For instance, this story isn’t focusing on the hundreds of worthy and informative stories published by the New Zealand media this week, and is instead honing in on a criticism of some coverage.

Even if – in the words of one 2001 review paper – “bad is stronger than good”, that bias comes at a cost.

A recent trust in media survey by AUT produced a startling finding: New Zealanders are world-leaders in tuning out the news, with 69 percent of respondents saying they actively avoid it at least some of the time, and just 37 percent of us taking high interest in what’s being reported.

When asked why they were switching off, a common response was that the coverage is depressing and divisive.

The potential for an increase in people moving to Australia is a worthy topic to cover.

New Zealand does have a skills shortage, and workers leaving for greener pastures is a genuine concern.

But this week’s coverage could feel like a little bit of a slap in the face to the New Zealanders who’ve spent more than 20 years living as – in the media’s own words – second class citizens.

Perhaps our news organisations could do a little better at reporting and contextualising how their lives have improved in real terms, rather than just fretting over as-yet unrealised scenarios where their gain might be our loss.

Source: Citizenship celebration turns sour in record time

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with , , ,

In a growing India, some struggle to prove they are Indians

2023/04/27 Leave a comment

Of note:

Krishna Biswas is scared. Unable to prove his Indian citizenship, he is at risk of being sent to a detention center, far away from his modest hut built of bamboo wood that looks down on fields lush with corn.

Biswas says he was born in India’s northeastern Assam state. So was his father, almost 65 years ago. But the government says that to prove he is an Indian, he should furnish documents that date back to 1971.

For the 37-year-old vegetable seller, that means searching for a decades-old property deed or a birth certificate with an ancestor’s name on it.

Biswas has none, and he is not alone. There are nearly 2 million people like him — over 5% of Assam’s population — staring at a future where they could be stripped of their citizenship if they are unable to prove they are Indian.

Questions over who is an Indian have long lingered over Assam, which many believe is overrun with immigrants from neighboring Bangladesh.

At a time when India is about to overtake China as the most populous country, these concerns are expected to heighten as Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government seeks to use illegal immigration and fears of demographic shift for electoral gains in a nation where nationalist sentiments run deep.

The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party has promised to roll out a similar citizenship verification program nationwide even though the process in Assam has been put on hold after a federal audit found it flawed and full of errors.

Nonetheless, hundreds of suspected immigrants with voting rights in Assam have been arrested and sent to detention centers the government calls “transit camps.” Fearing arrest, thousands have fled to other Indian states. Some have died of suicide.

Millions of people like Biswas, whose citizenship status is unclear, were born in India to parents who immigrated many decades ago. Many of them have voting cards and other identification, but the state’s citizenship registry counts only those who can prove, with documentary evidence, that they or their ancestors were Indian citizens before 1971, the year Bangladesh was born.

Modi’s party, which also rules Assam, argues the registry is essential to identify people who entered the country illegally in a state where ethnic passions run deep and anti-immigrant protests in the 1980s culminated in the massacre of more than 2,000 immigrant Muslims.

“My father and his brother were born here. We were born here. Our kids were also born here. We will die here but not leave this place,” Biswas, said on a recent afternoon at his home in Assam’s Murkata village, near the banks of the Brahmaputra River.

The Biswas family has 11 members, of whom the citizenship of nine is in dispute. His wife and mother have been declared Indian by a foreigners’ tribunal that decides on citizenship claims. Others, including his three children, his father and his brother’s family, have been declared “foreigners.”

It makes no sense to Biswas, who wonders why would some be considered to have settled in the country illegally and others not, even though they all were born in the same place.

The family, like many others, has not pleaded their case before the tribunal or higher courts due to a lack of money and the arduous paperwork required in the process.

“If we cannot be Indian then just kill us. Let them (the government) kill my whole family,” he said.

Source: In a growing India, some struggle to prove they are Indians

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with , , ,

New Zealand shouldn’t be afraid of ‘brain drain’ after Australian citizenship deal

2023/04/25 Leave a comment

Of interest, some similar but different dynamics between USA and Canada although restrictive immigration policies in USA are shifting somewhat the patterns in tech:

For a very long time, the concept of New Zealand and Australia as meaningfully different nations did not make much sense. The Tasman Sea was awash with two-way traffic in the 19th century, when we were outposts of the same empire, with ideas and people floating between the two countries freely. Australia’s 1900/01 constitution famously retains an option for New Zealand to join its federation of states. The two countries did not send proper diplomatic missions to each other’s capitals until 1943, and did not create separate “citizenships” until 1948.

In the decades since we have established ourselves as properly different countries, albeit ones that are extremely closely linked, with over half a million New Zealand citizens living in Australia. Over the weekend those links got even closer, as prime ministers Chris Hipkins and Anthony Albanese announced a huge change to the way New Zealanders can get citizenship, which has been far more difficult since 2001.

Kiwis living in Australia will soon be eligible to apply for citizenship after four years of living in the country, with all their children born since mid-2022 in the country automatically made citizens. This replaces a cumbersome and expensive system by which New Zealanders who had lived in Australia for years had to apply to become permanent residents of Australia first, despite already being de facto permanent residents anyway.

This is a major win for Hipkins and New Zealand. It brings Australia’s system into line with New Zealand’s and will make many New Zealanders lives measurably better, as they are able to access social services for themselves and their children in the country they have moved to. Even NZ First leader Winston Peters, who publicly decries the Labour government as “dishonest” separatists, acknowledged that the deal was a victory.

But before long an old obsession was trotted out to attack the deal: the “brain drain”. Australia is not just a richer country than New Zealand, it is one that distributes those riches differently, consistently paying workers a higher proportion of GDP. Would this not, asked several prominent economists, just send more Kiwis over the ditch for higher wages, contributing to existing skills shortages? One editor even suggested the government may have been “played” by those cunning Australians.

These arguments do New Zealand a disservice.

For one, there is scant evidence that this will meaningfully contribute to more people crossing the ditch. Between late-2003 and late-2022, 778,000 Kiwis migrated to Australia from New Zealand, suggesting that the tougher path to citizenship John Howard introduced in 2001 didn’t really stop many. If you’re the kind of young person who typically did make that move, the prospect of citizenship after four years is hard to see as much of a pull factor – over and above more immediate benefits like higher pay, better working conditions, and that half of your friends are doing the same. It could keep some Kiwis in Australia longer, sure, but anyone who is happy to become a citizen of Australia is likely a lost cause for us anyway.

Source: New Zealand shouldn’t be afraid of ‘brain drain’ after Australian citizenship deal

Filed under Citizenship, Immigration Tagged with ,

Australia unveils direct pathway to citizenship for New Zealanders

2023/04/24 Leave a comment

Of note (longstanding issue):

Australia announced on Saturday a direct pathway to citizenship for New Zealanders living in the country, reversing controversial visa rules a day before a visit by New Zealand Prime Minister Chris Hipkins.

Hipkins, set to visit Queensland state’s capital Brisbane on Sunday, hailed the move as “the biggest improvement in the rights of New Zealanders living in Australia in a generation”.

The changes, effective from July, meant New Zealand citizens living in Australia for four years or more could apply for citizenship without having to become permanent residents first, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said in a statement.

“We know that many New Zealanders are here on a Special Category Visa while raising families, working and building their lives in Australia. So I am proud to offer the benefits that citizenship provides,” Albanese added.

New Zealand has long campaigned for changes since visa rules were altered in 2001, making it tougher for Kiwis in Australia to get citizenship.

The reform would bring New Zealanders’ rights more into line with those of Australian expats living in New Zealand, Australia’s Labor government said.

“Kiwis taking up Australian citizenship will still retain their New Zealand citizenship. These dual citizens are not lost to New Zealand – but draw us closer together,” Hipkins said in a statement.

The changes also meant children born in Australia since July to an Australia-based New Zealand parent would be automatically entitled to Australian citizenship, he said.

“This will make critical services available to them,” he said, adding the changes delivered on an Albanese promise that no New Zealander be left “permanently temporary” in Australia.

Around 670,000 New Zealand citizens live in Australia, while there are around 70,000 Australians in New Zealand, according to Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

Australia’s Home Affairs Minister Clare O’Neil ruled out the changes being extended to other migrant groups, saying it was a “special arrangement with New Zealand”.

The reform was about ensuring the “strong friendship we have is reflected properly in law”, she told ABC television.

Source: Australia unveils direct pathway to citizenship for New Zealanders

Filed under Citizenship, Dual Citizenship Tagged with ,

Only path to citizenship for ‘lost’ Canadians can take years and may involve mistakes, court hears

2023/04/22 1 Comment

Useful account of the court proceedings and Justice Akbarali comments and questions. The definition of “lost Canadians” keeps on getting stretched. Agree, of course, on the need for better data, not just relying on personal stories and individual cases:

Government lawyers were challenged in court to justify the options for “lost Canadians” to be granted citizenship and the undue hardship endured by families affected by a rule that limits the passage of citizenship rights by descent for those born abroad.

At a hearing in Toronto on Thursday, federal government counsel argued there’s no charter right to citizenship and alternative pathways are available for children born overseas to foreign-born Canadians who can’t inherit citizenship under the second-generation cut-off rule.

“There’s simply one rule for passing on citizenship for the first generation born abroad, and that’s having a child born in Canada to continue the connection to Canada,” Hillary Adams, one of three lawyers for the government, told the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

“Or they can have their children born outside of Canada and confirm the connection to Canada by establishing permanent residence here and apply for citizenship, like most immigrants to Canada … The end result is the same. Your child gets Canadian citizenship.”

The lawsuit was brought by 23 individuals from seven families that have been negatively affected by the cut-off rule, arguing the law discriminates against them based on their place of birth, violates their mobility and liberty rights, and disproportionately puts women at a disadvantage when they have to give birth outside of Canada due to circumstances beyond their control.

Government co-counsel David Tyndale said people make personal choices as to where to look for jobs, where to start a family or whether to pursue a career abroad, and the choices have “intersecting effects” on one another.

“They may be difficult. They may involve serious consequences in some area or others of the person’s life. But the fact that life imposes choices on people as to where they live and where they have children isn’t necessarily a breach of the charter,” Tyndale argued.

The government contended that there’s no “blanket prohibition” for the second-generation born abroad to restore their Canadian citizenship through a discretionary grant by the immigration minister or indirectly first as a permanent resident through a family sponsorship before they turn 22 years old. Refused applicants can appeal to the Federal Court.

Noting that these processes could take months if not years, Justice Jasmine Akbarali raised concerns over mix-ups and mistakes in some of those decisions.

“They have to first become permanent residents and we know that hasn’t always been easy to obtain,” Akbarali said. “There’s children who applied for and did not get PR status. There’s no evidence to tell me how often that happens, that children of Canadian citizens obtain PR status on application or not.”

Government counsel Kevin Spykerman responded that there’s no evidence in the submissions but referred to some of the litigants who were granted citizenship by the immigration minister or successfully obtained permanent residence.

“In many of these applications, we see a much shorter processing time. And of course the 27 month processing time is not always 27 months,” said Spykerman. “We see success through this provision.”

But at what cost, the judge wondered.

“The courts are full of self-represented people who can’t afford lawyers. If you need a representative to find someone who knows somebody inside (immigration) to assist you in getting this exceptional grant to citizenship … then what about people who can’t afford it?” asked Justice Akbarali.

“Is it enough that they’re viable if they are incredibly difficult? If they cause hardship?”

Adams said the Federal Court is a better place to hear immigration and citizenship cases because of its expertise and experience in dealing with the relevant law and provincial courts generally defer jurisdiction to the higher court.

“Am I being asked to assume jurisdiction over immigration matters or am I being asked to apply the charter to federal law,” the judge interjected.

“You are being asked to apply the charter to federal law, which, again, you have jurisdiction to do. We’re not debating that,” Adams replied.

The government argued that none of the litigants’ mobility and liberty rights were infringed because at no point were the first-generation Canadians born abroad refused entry or exit from Canada. In addition, their foreign-born children were issued visitor visas to come to Canada.

“The applicants have been able to make fundamental personal choices free from state interference by moving overseas and having children overseas and by returning to Canada,” noted Adams, adding that the law is meant to ensure citizenship by descent is not passed from generation to generation to people without a connection to Canada.

The 23 litigants from multi-generational families, including grandparents and parents, have established ties to Canada before moving abroad and having children overseas.

The court questioned if those ties matter when the pejoratively known “birth tourists” with no connection to this country are able to obtain citizenship for their children by travelling to Canada and giving birth here.

“They have the choice as a birth tourist does to have child in Canada and reap the benefits of citizenship,” Adams answered. “There’s a choice where to have your children.

The litigants are seeking an order to declare the second-generation citizenship cut-off unconstitutional and grant citizenship to the four children in the lawsuit whose citizenship is still pending.

Source: Only path to citizenship for ‘lost’ Canadians can take years and may involve mistakes, court hears

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with , , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →