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

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

Australia unveils direct pathway to citizenship for New Zealanders

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

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

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.

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

Standing committee votes to reconnect ‘lost Canadians’ with their #citizenship

In parallel with the court case.

The previous retention provisions (age 28) were complicated and difficult to administer consistently and many did not avail themselves of these provisions, whether due to not being aware or not important to them at the time.

Degree of connection tests, while possible, would likely prompt debate over the particular conditions.

And when I last did an analysis of Canadian expatriates using a variety of connection tests – paying non-resident taxes, maintaining a Canadian passport, etc – the number was significantly less than estimates of their overall numbers.

As always, practically impossible to reach all Canadians living abroad with messages regarding citizenship and other policies that may affect them.

When Emma Kenyon tried to file for her child’s Canadian citizenship after moving abroad for work, she was told to travel back to Canada to give birth in a hospital here.

Speaking at a press conference on Monday, Kenyon said this advice was offered at the height of Canada’s pandemic travel lockdown in 2020, and would have resulted in a significant salary loss and posed a health risk to her pregnancy.

Both Kenyon and her husband grew up in Canada, and wanted to pass down their Canadian citizenship to their expected child and the rest of their growing family. Their efforts have been met with lingering bureaucracy.

On Monday, April 17, the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration voted to widen the scope of a new policy change to the Citizenship Act that aims to reconnect Canadians who were born abroad with their lost citizenship.

As it stands, Bill S-245 — which was introduced by Conservative Senator Yonah Martin in May 2022 — only gives some people their citizenship back, but not others.

The NDP’s amendments tabled on Monday will also include people like Kenyon, who fall outside of the bill’s scope — as it stood, the bill only allowed people born abroad between Feb. 15, 1977 and April 16, 1981 to reclaim citizenship.

The amendments were passed with 64 per cent of the committee in favour, while all votes against it came from CPC members.

CPC members opposed to Kwan’s amendment said they would use it as a bargaining chip for the party to push for their own agenda items like the reinstatement of in-person citizenship ceremonies.

“The NDP wants to seize this opportunity to fix ‘lost Canadian’ issues once and for all,” Kwan said in an announcement before the committee meeting.

She spoke alongside subject expert and author Don Chapman, Canadian Citizens Rights Councilexecutive director Randall Emery, immigration lawyer Sujit Choudhry, and people who would be affected by the policy change.

A history of the lost Canadians

In 2009, the then-Conservative government repealed parts of a 32-year-old section of the Citizenship Act that automatically revoked the citizenship of some Canadians when they turned 28, unless they re-applied for it.

But the arcane age 28 rule had not been clearly communicated to Canadians when it took effect in 1977. As a result second-generation kids awoke on their 28th birthday years later without their citizenship and the threat of deportation.

Last year, Opposition Deputy Leader, Conservative Senator Yonah Martin, expedited Bill S-245 through the Senate, to address “a small group of Canadians who have lost their Canadian citizenship or became stateless because of [these] changes to policy.”

It encompasses a specific cohort of lost Canadians that had already turned 28 before the rule was revoked, including only those born within a 50-month window.

On Monday, Kwan and those who spoke with her said the scope of the bill is still too narrow. The NDP’s amendments would include people, like Kenyon, who are currently told not to give birth abroad if they want to pass their Canadian citizenship on to their children.

At Monday’s announcement, Chapman noted the previous changes in citizenship policy reflected a UK-based model of identity laws that used to be popular in British colonies.

“Canada is the last country defending these laws,” he said.

Source: Standing committee votes to reconnect ‘lost Canadians’ with their …

‘Penalized for having been born abroad’: Foreign-born Canadians take government to court over second-generation cut-off rule

Will see what the court decides:

Should foreign-born Canadians who travel and give birth overseas automatically forfeit their right to pass on citizenship by descent?

That’s the question before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, which has been asked to decide if Canada is violating the charter by restricting the passing of citizenship by descent to the first generation born abroad only.

The lawsuit was brought by 23 individuals from seven families that have been negatively affected by the loss of citizenship as a result of the so-called second generation cut-off rule introduced by former prime minister Stephen Harper’s Conservative government in 2009.

The multi-generational litigants claim the law discriminates against their families 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.

The government argues that there’s no charter right to citizenship and Canada has never prevented any of the litigants from exiting or returning to the country, arguing that they made the “personal choices” to pursue international employment opportunities and have children abroad.

However, the families’ lawyers argued that government’s position oversimplifies the “complicated” reality of the many “moving parts” of those choices, such as access to health care, cost of health care, risks of travel, loss of job and income and jeopardy to career advancement.

“All of them are unable to pass on citizenship due to the circumstances of their birth. Their parents were Canadian citizens who went abroad temporarily for work or travel … That’s a circumstance beyond the control of the members of the first generation born abroad,” co-counsel Ira Parghi told Justice Jasmine Akbarali on Wednesday.

“Although they didn’t choose to be born abroad, they are nonetheless now being penalized for having been born abroad.”

The Canadian Citizenship Act has gone through numerous amendments since it came into effect in 1947. For years, it allowed Canadian parents to pass citizenship to their children born outside of Canada onto indefinite generations as long as the foreign-born descendants registered with the government by a certain age.

In 2009, the Harper government enacted and imposed a second generation cut-off for Canadians born abroad after Ottawa’s massive effort to evacuate 15,000 Lebanese Canadians stranded in Beirut during a month-long war between Israel and Lebanon in 2006.

Then immigration minister Diane Finley said the change was meant to discourage “Canadians of convenience” by ensuring citizens have a real connection to this country and not selling the Canadian citizenship short.

“Minister Finley justified the second generation cut-off by invoking concerns about Canadians of convenience, who would never set foot in Canada, had no real connection to Canada and simply sought citizenship to preserve the option of living here,” said Sujit Choudhry, co-counsel for the “lost Canadians.”

“The applicants are not Canadians of convenience. They returned as small children. They spent their formative years here. They are Canadian. Canada is their home.”

While Canadians born in Canada and naturalized Canadians could pass their citizenship to their children born abroad, Choudhry said Canadians born abroad by descent could not similarly do so.

“It’s an entirely arbitrary distinction and it’s the epitome of discrimination,” he contended.

Currently, one option for lost Canadians is to ask the immigration minister for a discretionary grant of citizenship “in exceptional cases” where a person is stateless or faces “special and unusual hardship” or proven to be “an exceptional value” to Canada.

Alternatively, Canadian parents can sponsor their foreign-born children to the country through family reunification if they are underage.

The families lawyers said both pathways are tortuous and unprincipled with little transparency, and decisions are rendered at the whim of a government bureaucrat.

Victoria Maruyama, who was born in Hong Kong and came to Canada in 1980 when she was one-year-old, has had an uphill battle trying to secure Canadian citizenship for her two children. They were both born in Japan, where she met her Japanese husband, an Air Force pilot, while she was teaching English there in 2002.

In 2017, she brought her children to Canada on visitors’ visas with the intent to raise them in her homeland. She made a plea to the immigration minister for Canadian citizenship for her kids’ while fighting to get them into public school and access to health care.

She subsequently applied for a discretionary citizenship grant by the minister and sponsored her young family for permanent residence.

“This concept of choice is very problematic when used in such a simple way,” Parghi told court.

Born in Libya, Patrick Chandler grew up in Mississauga and studied at the University of Toronto before teaching English in China, where he met his wife, Fiona. Both his children were born in Beijing.

In 2017, Chandler returned to Canada to start his family sponsorship but left his family behind because they wouldn’t be eligible for provincial health insurance or able to attend public schools.

“It is true that there is an alternative pathway which was to get permanent residency first and then citizenship. It is true that’s what the Chandler family did,” Parghi said. “But in order to get that permanent residency, they had to endure the yearlong separation whose effects were so devastating.”

The hearing resumes Thursday with arguments from the government.

Source: ‘Penalized for having been born abroad’: Foreign-born Canadians take government to court over second-generation cut-off rule

Caddell: Does Canadian citizenship mean anything?

More commentary opposing self-administered citizenship oaths among broader concerns:

There are few more endearing sights than a Canadian citizenship ceremony. As a reporter years ago, I witnessed a couple. They are memorable in the extreme: the judge intoning on the importance of being a good citizen, a chorus of new Canadians taking the oath together, and the smiles and tears of participants looking as if they won the lottery.

And in many cases, they have: for the chance to come to a country as wealthy, as open, as full of opportunity, is what drives that joy. And we benefit from the talented people who come here. When I worked in Bangladesh in 2000, my bank manager was applying to immigrate to Canada. When I asked why, he replied, “We consider Canada to be a kind of paradise.”

While we struggle with an influx of refugees and cope with the impact of discriminatory laws like Quebec’s Bill 21, immigration is a Canadian success story. Indeed, among the major federal parties, none is spouting an anti-immigrant bias, which is unusual compared to many western countries.

And so it was disappointing to read of a proposal in February’s Canada Gazette, innocuously titled “Regulations Amending the Citizenship Regulations (Oath of Citizenship).” It describes the backlog of citizenship applications due to the pandemic and offers a solution: “Technology offers the potential to vastly transform client service by helping to address long processing times and application inventories.”

In short, with the click of a mouse, you could become Canadian. No ceremony, no tears, no real effort. This simple act would reduce Canadian citizenship into a convenience, like online shopping.

Andrew Griffith, the former director general for citizenship and multiculturalism, doubts the idea came from the public service. “I find it hard to imagine anyone advocating for this,” despite the pressures of backlogs, he said. He thinks the deputy minister got a message from the minister’s office to “find a solution” to speed up processing and produced what Sir Humphrey of Yes, Minister would call a “courageous decision.”

Former Quebec premier Lucien Bouchard famously said: “Canada is not a real country.” The current prime minister once stated: “Canada is a post-national state with no core identity.” To assist that perception, it has been years since a new version of the Citizenship Study Guide was published.

At the same time, there is a decline in the number of permanent residents who become citizens: only half living here take the oath. We also have one of the world’s largest diasporas: three million Canadians live abroad, without plans to return. I recently met a Korean family living in Halifax for three years to obtain citizenship before heading home. While in Portugal, I met a couple from Hong Kong who blithely said they had Canadian citizenship, but had no intention of living here.

It has also become too easy to obtain citizenship. The Harper government tightened regulations by, among other things, moving the residency requirement to four years. The Trudeau Liberals put it back to three in 2017. In many other countries, five and even 10 years residency is common.

Many talented friends and relatives have moved to the U.S. over the decades, and are never coming back. They are among the 50,000 Canadians who leave for the U.S. and U.K. each year. One young friend who is moving called Canada “genocidal” and “communist,” while the U.S. was “the best country in the world.” Her opinion was evidently shaped by the self-flagellating commentary on our history from our leaders. Now, try to imagine Americans debating whether their capital should be renamed because George Washington owned hundreds of slaves.

The thought someone should obtain citizenship with the click of a button from this country, which has achieved so much, is an embarrassment. Have we become so low in our self-esteem that we have abandoned any pride in being a citizen, and its responsibilities?

The current government could easily cut the backlogs by renting arenas and stadiums to welcome new Canadians in mass citizenship ceremonies. It could renew the citizenship guide, offering a positive take on our history. And maybe more people would be attracted to live here. If it does not change the negative narrative it is sending Canadians and the world, it should get out of the way to allow others to lead.

Andrew Caddell is retired from Global Affairs Canada, where he was a senior policy adviser. He previously worked as an adviser to Liberal governments. He is a town councillor in Kamouraska, Que. He can be reached at pipson52@hotmail.com.

Source: Does Canadian citizenship mean anything?

COVID-19 Immigration Effects – February 2023 update

Latest monthly update. Of particular interest, percentage of TR2PR of permanent resident admissions is over 60 percent in both January and February. Not sure whether this reflects a conscious decision to address housing availability and affordability concerns, given TRs already in Canada, or not.

Ladha: I’m horrified by the suggestion of cancelling in-person citizenship ceremonies

Shortened version by Ladha getting wider circulation:

Citizenship ceremonies are emotional and personal experiences, especially for those of us who had the privilege of participating in one. The Department of Citizenship and Immigration is contemplating an end in-person citizenship ceremonies in favour of a “secure online solution.”

I still remember the citizenship ceremony that I had to attend when I proudly became a Canadian citizen in 1975. I was with my wife and son, all dressed up in our finest (Hugo Boss suit for me), lined up with new Canadians of all backgrounds, happily showing off the Canadian flags.

When the time came to sing the newly memorized national anthem, I was so emotional that my eyes welled up with tears. Every Canada Day, I still have visions of my heartbreaking citizenship ceremony experience.

I am horrified the government is proposing to abolish this special welcoming in-person citizenship ceremonies with an administrative online box and do away with a group singing “O Canada.”

The fact that Canada, the most friendly and welcoming nation in the world, would resort to a computer-oriented system to announce its citizens is appalling. Ceremonies in everyone’s life, be it a birthday or a retirement party, play an important part, signifying milestones in their lives.

A former minister of immigration under then Prime Minister Jean Chretien was so upset that he wrote an op-ed for this newspaper, calling it “an insult.” “For years, my parents would recount how momentous and meaningful (the ceremony) was. Why would government want to rob future citizens of this feeling of attachment?”

Another prominent defender, former Gov. Gen. Adrienne Clarkson, also a former refugee and presided over a few citizenship ceremonies herself as an Officer of the Order of Canada, said she was “horrified” by the proposed change.

Tareq Hadhad, a Syrian refugee famous for founding the Nova Scotia-based chocolatier Peace by Chocolate, described Canadian citizenship ceremonies as “the magical rituals that bring together everyone (new and old citizens) to celebrate the true meaning of the Canadian dream.”

Source: I’m horrified by the suggestion of cancelling in-person citizenship ceremonies

Why ‘golden’ passports and visas shouldn’t be abolished, but made better

Somewhat self-serving from one of the leading citizenship-by-investment companies:

Armand Arton has eight passports.

It’s a collection fitting for the CEO (or as Arton prefers, “Chief Global Citizen”) of a firm that helps ultra-wealthy people purchase second citizenships.

The passport business boomed during the pandemic, especially among wealthy Americans who, for perhaps the first time in their lives, were barred from entering many countries around the world.

Now, as Europe reckons with housing crises, inflation, extreme weather, and war, governments from Portugal to Ireland are banning foreigners from purchasing so-called golden passports and visas.

“Golden passports,” formally known as citizenship by investment programs, allow foreigners to receive citizenship in exchange for investing a certain amount of money in a country, often by purchasing real estate. Their less-advantageous siblings, “golden visas,” provide temporary residence permits in exchange for investment, as opposed to permanent citizenship.

Europe’s recent crusade against the programs boils down to a single question threatening the foundation of the $20 billion industry: is it fair to sell citizenship?

Arton thinks so — and not only because it pays his salary.

The CEO, whose firm has helped attract over $4 billion in foreign investment to various countries in the last 5 years, was born in communist Bulgaria after his family fled the Armenian genocide. When he drove with his parents through over a dozen countries to their new jobs in Morocco, he learned younger than most how your place of birth determines the degree to which you can move freely throughout the world.

“We had to go and apply for 14 visas, and convince 14 governments that were not refugees,” he said. “It makes you feel inferior and threatened everywhere you go, just because of the passport that you hold, which is not your choice.”

A lost financial opportunity

At the Carlyle hotel in Manhattan’s Upper East Side, the CEO wears a blue blazer and beaded rope bracelets, signifying that he is one of those wealthy people who is, or would like to be perceived as, down-to-earth. While Dr. Christian H. Kälin, the chairman of rival firm Henley & Partners goes by the nickname “passport king,” Arton tells me he thinks of himself as the “Robinhood of passports.”

“The rich will anyways get from point A to point B,” he says, beginning his pitch. “So removing the price they have to pay, it’s a lost financial opportunity.”

Instead of banning golden passports and visas outright, countries should adjust their investment requirements to match the current economic landscape and financial needs, he says.

In February, Portugal announced it will stop accepting new applications to its golden visa program as part of a package to help alleviate the housing crisis. Last year, approximately half of Portuguese workers made less than €1,000  per month, with many residents facing eviction.

But while blaming wealthy foreigners for rising housing costs is an easy political win, Arton says, the country would be better served if Portugal funneled the $7.4 billion in foreign investment brought in through the program since 2012 into projects that benefit local residents, like affordable housing or refugee services.

“Portugal should have stopped and said, listen, real estate doesn’t work for us anymore. Let’s find something else that the country needs,” he told Insider.

Dr. Kristin Surak, an Associate Professor of Political Sociology at the London School of Economics and author of “The Golden Passport: Global Mobility for Millionaires,” says that while firms like Arton’s obviously have a financial interest in the programs continuing, the founder does make some fair points.

According to Surak, there aren’t enough golden visa recipients to destabilize the entire country’s housing market. Since the program’s inception in 2012, Portugal has issued 11,628 investor visas, equating to approximately 0.1% of the national population.

“I think there’s a little bit of racism, to be quite honest, in terms of the way these programs get blamed for different things,” she said, noting that most foreign property owners in Portugal are from EU countries like France and Sweden. Meanwhile, Chinese and Brazilian nationals make up the majority of the country’s golden visa recipients.

A golden tax

In a country like Syria, home to the world’s largest refugee crisis, Arton has clients that pay hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars to purchase second citizenship and fly away on their private jets.

The stark contrast between the migration opportunities for the elite and the impoverished prompted Arton to advocate for a Global Citizen Tax, a 1% to 5% tax on all investor citizenship and residence applications to be put toward the nation’s most pressing needs.

“For me, it’s something that I really want to be able to make an impact on a larger scale, not only for the guys in first class and private jets,” he said.

A scandalous history

But golden passports don’t only raise the issue of inequality, the European Commission argues, they also pose a threat to national security. Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, sanctioned oligarchs were accused of using the schemes to dodge sanctions. And in 2020, an Al Jazeera investigation found that Cyprus’ now-defunct program sold citizenship to criminals and political fugitives.

Arton believes national security concerns may have been the motivation behind Ireland’s recent program closure, which happened right around the time of the Chinese spy balloon scare. Last year, 282 of Ireland’s 306 golden visa applications came from Chinese citizens, The Irish Timesreported.

Arton said due-diligence for vetting applicants could use improvement, and is in favor of increasing industry regulation and data-sharing between nations. However, he argues that the odds are much greater that so-called “unsavory actors” enter a country via undocumented routes.

“If I’m a terrorist, if I’m really somebody that wants to threaten the security of the European Union, the last thing I’m going to do is apply through one of these programs,” he said.

Surak said that, by the numbers, golden visas and passports are neither national security nor money laundering issues, and said in her experience, investor migration tends to invoke moral outrage among people who already have strong passports and have never had to think strategically about immigration.

“Migration is always somehow fundamentally economic,” she said. “I think it’s complicated, which is not to say there aren’t problems with the programs. But I think there’s also a lot of hypocrisy and that the inequalities and power dynamics aren’t exactly what one expects.”

Source: Why ‘golden’ passports and visas shouldn’t be abolished, but made better

The Kuwaiti Bidoon: neither nationals nor foreigners

Of interest:

At the wheel of his car, Hakim, wearing a blue djellaba, drives through the town of al-Ahmadi, built by and for the workers of the Kuwait National Petroleum Company. “There are two types of Bidoon in Kuwait,” he explains. “Those who worked in the oil industry and those who were in the army or the police.” This leading activist of the Bidoon cause in Kuwait adds: “Until 1990, the Bidoon enjoyed the same rights as all Kuwaiti citizens and took part in this country’s construction. In the 1960s and 1970s, over 80 per cent of the armed forces were Bidoon.”

The Bidoon – Arabic for ‘without’, implying ‘without nationality’ – are a stateless Arab minority in Kuwait. They should not be confused with the Bedouin, who are nomads living in the desert, although many Bidoon are descendants of nomadic tribes from the Arabian Peninsula. Most Bidoon are now categorised by the Kuwaiti authorities as ‘illegal residents’, despite having no links to other countries.

The Bidoon Committee, the central authority for dealing with the status of illegal residents, established in 2010, is a public institution intended to resolve nationality issues by granting citizenship to those entitled to it. Very few Bidoon have, however, been able to benefit from this process, as the committee regularly claims, without foundation, that they belong to another nationality. The authorities’ approach to them became harsher after the Iraqi occupation, from 1990 to 1991, suspecting them of having “collaborated with the enemy”.

Nawaf, aged 37, works as a taxi driver. He shows the documents of his uncle who obtained Kuwaiti citizenship in 1973, but since his father did not have citizenship, he cannot have it.

They are faced with a range of pressures to reveal their supposed ‘real nationality’. They are attributed nationalities based on their physical traits: “You look like an Iraqi,” they have been told, for example. Although some of them have been able to obtain identity documents, with the reference “non-Kuwaiti”, since 2011, and the first demonstrations to defend their rights, it has become almost impossible for them to renew them.

Hussain works in an automobile garage. In 2009, corrupt officials suggested he should buy a fake EU passport, which he went to collect from the public authorities.

According to some Bidoon, they are offered fake passports to push them into exile. In 2009, after being arrested during a traffic inspection, Hussain found himself in front of an Egyptian* official, in a Bidoon Committee office. The official presented him with a card with the contact details of a person from whom he could buy a fake passport. After meeting this person, Hussain decided to buy a fake Danish passport, “because it was the cheapest”, he says. As agreed with the Egyptian agent, he went to his office to hand in his new fake passport. A few days later, he went to pick up his fake passport from the public authorities.

Abdul Razaq, aged 73, shares memories of his time in the Kuwaiti police force, where he worked for over 10 years until the Iraqi invasion in 1990. Now, the authorities are refusing to give him nationality and a retirement pension.

They are also now excluded from the army, the public administration and the civil service. When they are not directly harassed by the authorities, who tell them to close their businesses or have their goods confiscated, the Bidoon are discriminated against in the labour market.

“I have been working for 12 years in the mail service of a public body, I am not entitled to paid holidays and I used to be paid €750. Last year, they decided to reduce my salary to €600,” says Bender, another Bidoon. He adds, by way of example, that the basic salary “of a teacher, even a foreigner, is €3900, whereas for a Bidoon it is €1350”.

A view of the Mutla desert in the Jahra region, where the Bidoon lived before the country’s independence. Today, the majority of them live in the surrounding towns, but continue to come here to relax with friends.

Their number is a sensitive issue. For many years, the authorities have been claiming that there are about 100,000 of them in Kuwait, which is clearly a huge underestimate. Hakim explains that confidential documents leaked on social media in 2016, on the government’s public policies for the Bidoon, refer to a figure of around 400,000 out of a national population of just under three million.

In the town of Taima, some 20 kilometres from the capital, Kuwait City, a road separates two worlds: on the left, comfortable housing reserved for Kuwaiti families, often granted by the government, while on the right, low breeze block houses, corrugated iron extensions and poor roads is the lot of the Bidoon.

The town of Taima is divided into several blocks, where the Bidoon came to settle in the 1970s, at the request of the state. They were built to bring an end to the traditional settlements, the ashish , where the Bidoon used to live. They were supposed to be temporary and the families were to be rehoused. But, 50 years on, they have never been given the opportunity to move elsewhere.

From Block 2 in Taima, residents have a direct view of one of the largest hospitals in the Persian Gulf, but the Bidoon, for lack of identity documents, only have access to basic treatment.

A few metres from these houses is a public school, in which stateless children cannot enrol. The majority of the Bidoon population is deprived of access to free education and health care. Those who can afford it pay for their children to go to private schools. They are also often denied marriage and birth certificates.

Quelques avancées ont eu lieu, ces dernières années, grâce à l’engagement de plusieurs associations bidounes. Depuis 2014, une centaine de Bidoun ont eu la possibilité de rentrer à l’université publique chaque année, sous réserve de bons résultats scolaires, même si certains secteurs comme la médecine leur restent interdits. « Je veux juste ma liberté de mouvement », explique le jeune Hassan, assis dans sa tente où il loue des chevaux. Du haut de ses 20 ans, il est malfré tout fier de son pays et de toutes ses infrastructures, « je veux juste pouvoir voyager avec mes amis ». Some progress has been made in recent years, thanks to the work of several Bidoon associations. Since 2014, around 100 Bidoon have been given the opportunity to enter public universities each year, subject to good school grades, although some areas of study such as medicine remain off-limits to them. “I just want freedom of movement,” says young Hassan, sitting in his tent from where he rents out horses. The 20-year-old is proud of his country and all its infrastructure, and says, “I just want to be able to travel with my friends.”

Source: The Kuwaiti Bidoon: neither nationals nor foreigners