Federal government appeals court ruling recognising man born in pre-independence PNG as Australian

Hard to understand the rationale for appealing the particular case unless there is a general point they wishy to make:

The federal government has lodged an appeal to overturn a Federal Court decision recognising the Australian citizenship of a man born in pre-independence Papua New Guinea (PNG).

Troyrone Zen Lee won a four-year battle with the federal government last month after being told in 2016 he was not an Australian citizen.

Mr Lee, who has lived in Brisbane since the early 1980s, was born in May 1975 in Port Moresby in the Australian external territory of Papua – four months before PNG became an independent country.

In his April judgment, Federal Court judge Darryl Rangiah ruled that at the time PNG became independent, Mr Lee fell within s65(4)(a) of the PNG Constitution “as a person who had the right to permanent residence in Australia and that therefore did not make him a PNG citizen”.

“I make the declaration that the applicant is an ‘Australian citizen’.”

Court documents filed on Friday show the Department of Home Affairs is appealing on the grounds that Justice Rangiah erred in finding Mr Lee was not an “immigrant” under the then Australian Migration Act after PNG independence in September 1975.

The appeal rejects the Federal Court ruling that Mr Lee had the right to Australian permanent residence, did not become a PNG citizen, and had never ceased to be an Australian citizen after independence, and remains an Australian citizen.

Both Mr Lee’s parents are Australian citizens, as are his father’s parents and his younger siblings, who were born in post-independence PNG and obtained Australian citizenship by descent.

“I am indeed deeply disappointed that Home Affairs has decided to make an appeal, but we will keep motoring on until this is finished,” Mr Lee told SBS News.

“Having done nothing wrong and confirmed in the Federal Court that I am an Australia citizen, it would seem there is no error with my status under the Australian Citizenship Act, yet Home Affairs continue to be unfair in dragging out this issue.”

Many PNG-born Australians have been caught out by Australian legislative changes that have resulted in the cancellation of their passports and citizenship certificates, rendering some technically stateless.

The federal government has argued the documents had been incorrectly issued for up to four decades and told those affected to apply for Australian citizenship.

Mr Lee travelled with his mother repeatedly to Australia after PNG independence on her passport and was issued with an Australian passport in 1979 before the family settled permanently in Brisbane in 1982.

Four years ago when he tried to renew his passport, his application was refused.

In the Federal Court hearing, a submission by the acting immigration minister Alan Tudge argued Mr Lee lost his Australian citizenship when PNG became independent in 1975.

“As the matter is before the court it would be inappropriate to comment,” the Department of Home Affairs said in a statement to SBS News on Tuesday.

Scheer didn’t follow through on renouncing U.S. citizenship

Further embarrassment, with a number of prominent Conservatives understandably calling for a new interim leader:

Outgoing Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer still holds his U.S. citizenship, after stating during the 2019 federal election campaign that he was in the process of renouncing it.

In an interview on CTV’s Question Period with Evan Solomon, Scheer said that after deciding to step down as leader, he halted the process.

“Knowing that I won’t be prime minister, I discontinued that process,” Scheer said.

During the fall federal election campaign, Scheer confirmed that he had dual Canadian-U.S. citizenship after it was first reported by The Globe and Mail, saying he was in the process of renouncing his American citizenship.

When the story of his dual citizenship first broke in October, Scheer said he met with embassy representatives in August to renounce his citizenship and had submitted his paperwork to formalize it.

However, that paperwork was never formalized, and so Scheer continues to hold dual citizenship status. Asked why the change of heart, Scheer cited “personal reasons.”

He could not say when exactly he stopped the process of dropping his American citizenship.

“I’d have to go back and check,” he said.

In December, Scheer announced his intention to step down as leader, as soon as a replacement was picked. At the time he said it was “one of the most difficult decisions” he has ever made.

The controversy surrounding his citizenship amid the campaign was cited as one of the issues Scheer faced during his attempt to win over voters and defeat Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and the federal Liberal Party in the last federal election.

At the time, Scheer was questioned as to why it took him two years from when he took the helm of the federal Conservative party to begin the process of renouncing his U.S. citizenship, which he received from his father who was born there.

Scheer said the delay was because he was focused on rebuilding the party and preparing for the campaign, and said the reason he hadn’t spoken about it was that: “No one’s ever asked me before.”

Scheer has filed taxes in the U.S., but has never voted in a U.S. election, his campaign said in the fall.

Scheer’s office later told CTVNews.ca that while he remains an American citizen, Scheer has not received the one-time direct aid payment the U.S. government sent to adult citizens amid the ongoing COVID-19 crisis.

Under federal elections law there aren’t any rules prohibiting dual citizens from running to become an MP or campaigning to be the prime minister, though in the past the Conservatives and Scheer specifically have been critical of other leaders’ citizenship status.

Back in 2005 Scheer sought input from his constituents, asking whether they were bothered by former Gov. Gen. Michaelle Jean’s French citizenship in a blog post about her appointment.

During the 2008 federal election campaign, Stephane Dion also faced questions from Conservatives about his French citizenship.

The race to replace him is underway with four candidates in the running. Party members have a deadline of August 21 to submit their mail-in ballot.

Once the new leader is named, Scheer said he intends to stay on as the MP for Regina-Qu’Appelle, Sask., and that he plans to run again in the next federal election.

“I hope to be able to earn their trust again in the next election. I love my riding in Saskatchewan, and I’m looking forward to spending more time there,” he said.

Source: Scheer didn’t follow through on renouncing U.S. citizenship

Revive Canada’s immigrant investor program, IIAC says

Favourite line: “a formal immigrant investor program, building on the strengths of the previous federal program.”

Reality: the evaluation that showed minimal to no benefits (Evaluation of the Federal Business Immigration Programwww.canada.ca › english › pdf › pub › e2-2013_fbip – the backlog was not the issue) and census data showing lower incomes than refugees.

The Harper government correctly ended the program.

IIAC’s citing the Quebec program as a model is risable as most end up elsewhere in Canada with the same minimal impact or contribution to the economy (Douglas Todd: Time to end ‘honour system’ in Quebec’s immigrant-investor scheme).

Government should not go there as main benefits accrue to the consultants that push for such programs:

The Investment Industry Association of Canada (IIAC) has suggested that increasing foreign direct investment (FDI) in Canada could help rebuild the economy in the wake of Covid-19.

In a May 5 letter to federal Finance Minister Bill Morneau, IIAC president and CEO Ian Russell wrote that there are “tens of thousands” of foreign investors looking for permanent residence in Canada, and other countries will benefit from their wealth if Canada doesn’t.

Russell suggested the federal government could increase FDI by re-introducing “a formal immigrant investor program, building on the strengths of the previous federal program.”

The previous program, the Federal Immigrant Investor Program (FIIP), was closed in 2014 as a result of the Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, which found that large backlogs of applications tied to economic immigration programs were a major hurdle for the immigration system.

IIAC conceded that the FIIP had issues, but suggested a new program could be temporary and tied to the economic recovery from Covid-19.

“To speed up [the program’s] implementation, its structure could be similar to what exists in Quebec but with the addition of a non-refundable contribution to boost its impact,” Russell wrote. “Unlike regular investors or entrepreneurs, immigrant investors are more interested in obtaining permanent residence for themselves and their families, and having the return of their portion of capital guaranteed after a reasonable time period (5-7 years).”

The implementation of such a program would require collaboration between multiple ministries, and “the government could decide where the FDI would be best invested as per its needs for post-Covid-19 recovery,” Russell said.

Dealer firms regulated by the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada (IIROC) could “help design, promote and support this new [FIIP] program,” Russell suggested, adding that many IIROC members were “involved in the FIIP process” and some have acted as consultants to other countries.

In data released in late February, Statistics Canada said foreign direct investment in Canada was positive in Q4 2019, but lower than what was recorded a year earlier.

Read the full IIAC letter.

Source: Revive Canada’s immigrant investor program, IIAC says

Northern Ireland-born British and Irish win EU citizenship rights

The UK government forced to change its position:

All British and Irish citizens born in Northern Ireland will be be treated as EU citizens for immigration purposes, the government has announced after a landmark court case involving a Derry woman over the residency rights of her US-born husband.

The move is a major victory for Emma de Souza ending a three-year battle to be recognised by the Home Office as Irish, a right enshrined in the Good Friday Agreement (GFA).

De Souza said: “This is great news. To get a concession from the British government and a change in the immigration law is no small feat.

“It is incredibly satisfying to be considered as EU citizens and will be a great help to all the other families in my situation.”

Her husband, Jake, will now be allowed to remain in the UK indefinitely if he applies for the EU settlement scheme, an immigration status for all EU citizens wanting to remain in the UK post-Brexit.

The Home Office made its rule change in parliament on Thursday, finally bringing immigration law into line with the 1998 peace deal, which allows anyone born in Northern Ireland to be British, Irish or both.

Source: Northern Ireland-born British and Irish win EU citizenship rights

Price watchdog criticises cost of becoming Swiss – SWI swissinfo.ch

Some of the highest fees in Europe:

Naturalisation fees vary among Switzerland’s 26 cantons. This has caught the eye of the federal price watchdog, who doubts that the fees fall within the legal framework.

The law on Swiss citizenshipexternal link stipulates that “the fees may not amount to more than is required to cover costs”. But for price watchdog Stefan Meierhans this is “more than questionable”, as he writes in his newsletterexternal link on Thursday.

He says one reason for his doubts are the great differences between cantons. These are “far too large and are not comprehensible against the background of the cost recovery principle”. The result is a “great inequality in treatment of people seeking naturalisation”.

What is a justified price for naturalisation? Meierhans considers a cantonal and municipal fee of a maximum of CHF1,500 ($1,540) per adult to be fair. He adds that it should be possible to increase the fee moderately for an “extraordinarily high amount of work”.

Most cantons charge around this figure, but a survey by the price watchdog shows there’s a wide range, with the process costing from CHF200 to CHF2,200. In 19 cantons the average is not more than CHF1,000. In several cantons, however, naturalisation can be considerably more expensive, with fees of up to CHF4,000 being possible.

Source: Price watchdog criticises cost of becoming Swiss – SWI swissinfo.ch

The Citizenship Problem | Essay | Zócalo Public Square

While his overall critique of the many inequalities intrinsic to citizenship is largely correct, no discussion of realistic alternatives (because there are none with the exception of the mixed success of the EU).

The more practical approach is to assess individual citizenship policies and practices as to their degree of inclusion or exclusion:

Why do we still cling to citizenship?

Certainly, it’s not required to protect your rights. We live in a world of human rights, where slavery is outlawed, gay people can marry, and thinking for yourself (rather than obedience to authority) is valued. So why, in societies based on the ideal of equal human worth, does citizenship still exist?

Citizenship is typically justified with romantic notions—self-determination, democracy, preservation of values. But at its core, citizenship is little more than a certain legal status within a certain legal system. By defining its rights and privileges as bound to a particular state, citizenship itself violates our cherished idea of equal human worth. Instead, citizenship is most effective at upholding caste systems both within and among nations.

In most cases, citizenship is granted more or less at random, based on where your family was from, or where you were raised. Public authorities grant citizenship; the actual citizen typically has no participation in the decision. Once granted, citizenship cannot be refused—or changed before obtaining some other citizenship, without the risk of becoming a “stateless” person, deprived of the rights of citizenship anywhere in the world.

Citizenship was created to legally proclaim equality among the haves and have-nots. It did not eliminate socioeconomic inequality; it merely explained it away through the incomplete promise of “one person one vote.” This made extracting obedience from the population easier and drove nationalism. Today, even the most awful political systems boast glorified citizenships.

For most of its history, citizenship has been useful for a very ugly reason. Citizenship allows us to ignore the basic tenets of the enlightenment—the presumption that humans are equal—without real argument. It is enough to say “She is not a citizen” to justify excluding someone from rights, entitlements, and respect.

For most of its history, citizenship has been useful for a very ugly reason. Citizenship allows us to ignore the basic tenets of the enlightenment—the presumption that humans are equal—without real argument. It is enough to say “She is not a citizen” to justify excluding someone from rights, entitlements and respect.

Citizenship, thus, can divide as much as it unites. We see that in the U.S. with DACA kids, the Dreamers, who are threatened with being thrown out of their home country because they lack citizenship. And America is not alone. Citizenship divides not only people within a nation, but confers unequal status based on the privileged status of some nations over others. Think of those who possess the all-entitling super-citizenships of nations of the global north, versus the limitations against people who come from former colonies—it’s clear that the status quo of citizenship is racist.

Racism is just one of the core building blocks of citizenship; sexism is another, as citizenship was routinely denied to women as well as minorities until well into the 20th century.

Citizenship is at a crossroads now: the dominant narrative that the global equality of human beings can be assured within states is in reality eroding. Different citizenships are not equal, and the allocation of citizenship rights worldwide is neither logical nor clear.
At the macro level, citizenship enables the perpetuation of rigid pre-modern caste structures. The son of an American is an American, and the son of a brahman is a brahman. We do not ask ourselves whether this is just.

To argue for citizenship at a micro level is utterly confounding and contradictory. Being a tenured professor is irrelevant to citizenship in Germany, but was crucial to securing immediate citizenship in Austria until 2008. “Being active in the diaspora” is irrelevant to Austrians, but can make you a Pole. Having a Lebanese mother is irrelevant to Lebanese citizenship, but having a Jewish mother, even without Israeli citizenship, can make you Israeli.

Examples of this disparity in the rules of citizenship are countless: what is taken for granted as best practice in one country can seem almost outrageous in another. But the contradictions should point us to the bigger problem with citizenship: there cannot be a “worse” or a “better” method of assignment to a caste. Any caste system depends on repugnant assumptions and should be intolerable, at least in modern democracies.

All citizenships are described often as equally valuable—even though this assumption is flawed. Equality of different citizenships would only work in a world where authorities could enforce standards of self-fulfillment and personal empowerment in every country. In such a world, citizenship would provide rights, not liabilities.

And in such a glorious world, citizenship would then be irrelevant.

But we live in a world where there are Pakistanis, whose citizenship is a global liability; they must hold a visa to travel to any other country, and hold no settlement rights abroad—and also Norwegians, who enjoy countless rights at home and can settle in more than 40 of the richest democracies without any formalities. In our world, citizenships do not have equal dignity. We are treated differently according to the color of our passport, and citizenship upholds random privilege. Look from Europe across the Mediterranean, or peer from the U.S. across the wall President Trump is building, and you see a world order where punishing randomness and hypocrisy reign.

The quality of our citizenship correlates very neatly with the global distribution of wealth. Most of the world’s people are losers of what prominent scholar Ayelet Shachar called ‘the birthright lottery.’ That is because they are denied the mobility and security that comes with a passport from an economically advanced nation and got their status at random. By controlling the borders between states, citizenship is the most important tool in the world to keep it that way.

Source: The Citizenship Problem | Essay | Zócalo Public Square

Report: Trump Policies Delay Citizenship For Immigrants Before Election

As Canada has also suspended citizenship interviews and ceremonies, not sure that this falls into the same category as the Trump administration’s anti-immigration and anti-immigrant policies:

Naturalization ceremonies and interviews have stopped due to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) office closures and administration policies. At least tens of thousands of immigrants have been prevented from becoming American citizens. Given that solutions to the problem are obvious, the USCIS actions raise questions about whether the Trump administration’s objective is to slow down the pace of naturalization before the 2020 election.

A new report provides a perspective on the current naturalization picture for immigrants. “On March 18, 2020 – due to the coronavirus pandemic – USCIS stopped doing these interviews and ceremonies,” according to a study by Boundless Immigration, a technology company that helps immigrants obtain green cards and citizenship. “This delay has already left well over 100,000 future Americans in limbo. These would-be citizens have already made it through most of the naturalization process. Now they must wait, perhaps indefinitely, before they can become full citizens and gain the right to vote in the 2020 election. If USCIS does not resume interviews and oath ceremonies using remote methods appropriate for the present emergency, the number of disenfranchised citizens-in-waiting will continue to pile up.”

The numbers are adding up. “Boundless did the math, and estimated that 2,100 immigrants will run out of time to vote each day that USCIS offices remain closed,” according to the study. “The number increases for each month the COVID-19 shutdown remains in effect.”

There appears to be no reason why USCIS is not conducting naturalization ceremonies using video conferencing technology, as so much business is being conducted these days. “People who need to complete their citizenship oath ceremony are no different from people who need to complete their oath of office for a position in the current administration – the latter is happening via video conference right now but the former is not,” said Doug Rand, co-founder and president of Boundless, in an interview.

“People who need to complete their naturalization interviews are no different from people who take online proctored exams, which was already happening millions of times long before COVID-19,” said Rand. “The entire country is making do with video conferencing right now, why can’t USCIS?”

Is the absence of an interview the final obstacle preventing many people from becoming citizens? “If USCIS were serious about getting people naturalized, they would schedule a single video conference interview, and if the applicant passes, they would immediately take the oath and become a citizen in that same session,” according to Rand. “This used to happen routinely at field offices before they all closed down. There’s no rule that says the interview and the oath have to be two months apart.”

Rand notes everything came to a halt when USCIS closed its offices. “Both interviews and oath ceremonies shut down on March 18,” he said. “We’re just about to hit the two-month mark, which means that pretty much all the people who have nothing left but an oath ceremony would have been citizens by now, and going forward there will be more and more people who weren’t interviewed by March 18 and also would be citizens if USCIS had been doing remote interviews.”

Immigration attorney Greg Siskind points out the two relevant parts of the Immigration and Nationality Act are 332(a) [1443(a)] on “Rules and regulations governing examination of applicants” and 332(d) [1443(d)] on “Administration of oaths and depositions.” Siskind said, “There is nothing that says the interviews or the oath ceremonies need to happen in person.”

There are currently over 649,000 pending applications for naturalization, according to the latest USCIS data. At the end of FY 2015, there were 363,270 pending naturalization applications. The denial rate for non-military naturalization cases rose from 9.4% in FY 2015 to 10.5% in FY 2019, according to a National Foundation for American Policy analysis.

In his final speech as president, Ronald Reagan spoke about the value of American citizenship. “Since this is the last speech that I will give as president, I think it’s fitting to leave one final thought, an observation about a country which I love,” said Reagan. “It was stated best in a letter I received not long ago. A man wrote me and said: ‘You can go to live in France, but you cannot become a Frenchman. You can go to live in Germany or Turkey or Japan, but you cannot become a German, a Turk, or a Japanese. But anyone, from any corner of the Earth, can come to live in America and become an American.’”

As we think about people who want to become Americans and are now blocked, we might consider Ronald Reagan’s additional remarks about immigrants and citizens in that last speech, remarks that sound so different from the rhetoric we hear today.

“Yes, the torch of Lady Liberty symbolizes our freedom and represents our heritage, the compact with our parents, our grandparents, and our ancestors,” said Reagan. “It is that lady who gives us our great and special place in the world. For it’s the great life force of each generation of new Americans that guarantees that America’s triumph shall continue unsurpassed into the next century and beyond. Other countries may seek to compete with us; but in one vital area, as a beacon of freedom and opportunity that draws the people of the world, no country on Earth comes close.

“This, I believe, is one of the most important sources of America’s greatness. We lead the world because, unique among nations, we draw our people — our strength — from every country and every corner of the world. And by doing so we continuously renew and enrich our nation. While other countries cling to the stale past, here in America we breathe life into dreams. We create the future, and the world follows us into tomorrow. Thanks to each wave of new arrivals to this land of opportunity, we’re a nation forever young, forever bursting with energy and new ideas, and always on the cutting edge, always leading the world to the next frontier. This quality is vital to our future as a nation. If we ever closed the door to new Americans, our leadership in the world would soon be lost.”

Source: Report: Trump Policies Delay Citizenship For Immigrants Before Election

Americans Giving Up Citizenship Faster Than Ever Before Reports Bambridge Accountants New York

Significant increase.

As for the Canadian angle, ApCPC leader Andrew Scheer has not yet renounced his American citizenship (Stephen Lautens on Twitter: “Still no sign of Still no sign of Andrew Scheer in the US’s Quarterly Publication of Individuals Who Have Chosen To Expatriate (lose United States citizenship) …twitter.com › stephenlautens › status).:

Americans are renouncing their citizenship at the highest levels on record, according to research by the Enrolled Agents and accountants Bambridge Accountants New York.

  • 2,909 Americans gave up their citizenship in the first 3 months of 2020
  • Showing a 1,104% increase on the prior 3 months to December 2019where only 261 cases were recorded
  • 2,072 Americans gave up their citizenship in 2019 in total
  • This is the highest quarter on record, the previous record was 2,365 cases for the fourth quarter of 2016
  • It seems that the pandemic has motivated U.S. expats to cut ties and avoid the onerous tax reporting

Americans must pay a $2,350 government fee to renounce their citizenship, and those based overseas must do so in person at the U.S. Embassy in their country.

There are an estimated 9 million U.S. expats. The trend has been that there has been a steep decline over the last few years for U.S. citizens expatriating – the first 3 months of 2020 is a huge increase in the number of Americans renouncing their citizenship.

Under the IRS rules (section 6039g), every three months the U.S. Government publishes the names of all Americans who give up their citizenship. The first 3 months for 2020 had 2,909 Americans renouncing their citizenship, far more than the total of the four quarters for 2019 (2,072 Americans renounced).

Alistair Bambridge, partner at Bambridge Accountants New York, explains: “There has been a huge turnaround of U.S. expats renouncing, where the figures have been in steep decline since 2017.”

“The surge in U.S. expats renouncing from our experience is that the current pandemic has allowed individuals to get their affairs in order and deal with an issue they may have been putting off for a while.”

“For U.S. citizens living abroad, they are still required to file U.S. tax returns, potentially pay U.S. tax and report all their foreign bank accounts, investments and pensions held outside the U.S. For many Americans this intrusion is too much and they make the serious step of renouncing their citizenship as they do not plan to return to live in the U.S.”

“There has been a silver lining for U.S. expats that they have been able to claim the Economic Impact Payment of $1,200, but for some this is too little, too late.”

Source: Americans Giving Up Citizenship Faster Than Ever Before Reports Bambridge Accountants New York

US Congress Reincarnates Discrimination Against American Citizens Because of Who They Marry

Sigh…:

In 1907, Congress passed a law that punished US citizen women for marrying “foreigners.” In March of 1931, Congress rejected this discrimination. But in March of 2020, Congress reincarnated it by passing a law that punishes both US citizen men and women who are married to non-citizens. The March 2020 CARES Act was designed to help support American families during the coronavirus crisis by providing payment through the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). But it punishes US citizens because they have non-citizen spouses, even when they have correctly filed income tax forms. This gives new life to the legally rejected historical animosity against US citizens who married non-citizens. This reversion conflicts with modern law that recognizes the agency and authority of married women and men, respects an individual’s choice about marriage, and supports a fundamental right to family. Further, it undermines American citizens’ statutory right to request that their non-citizen spouses live with them in the United States.

The CARES Act denies stimulus checks to US citizens who have filed their income tax forms with their social security numbers and the Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITIN) of their non-citizen spouses. Other citizens who filed their joint family tax returns for 2018 and or 2019 are eligible to receive desperately needed aid to support their families during the coronavirus crisis.

The CARES Act reverts back to the prior century’s hostility to citizens, particularly women, who married non-citizens. In 1915, the US Supreme Court in Mackenzie v. Hare upheld the constitutionality of the 1907 law that resulted in the involuntary loss of a woman’s US citizenship if she married a “foreigner.” Ethel Mackenzie was a life-long resident of California married to a British citizen living with her in California. She lost her citizenship because of her marriage when she attempted to fulfill another civic responsibility: voting. The 1907 law was grounded in the concept of coverture that removed a married women’s rights on the premise that she was subordinate to and controlled by her “foreign” husband. In 1931, Congress rejected punishment against citizens married to non-citizens by passing a law that prevented the loss of citizenship through marriage to a “foreigner.” Married women, as well as men, were then legally respected as persons with agency and authority in their choice of spouses and family life.

Further, in 1965, Congress established family unity as a predominant basis for migration. The legislation rejected prior discriminatory criteria based on nationality, race, and gender. It afforded a statutory right to US citizens wishing to live in the US with their non-citizen immediate relatives, including spouses. The right to family unity as a spouse belongs to the US citizen. The citizen must file a petition for her spouse, and only if that petition is approved may the non-citizen spouse apply for permanent residency that then allows application for a social security number. But this already lengthy process was subject to delays by the Trump administration before the coronavirus crisis and has now been blocked by the United States Citizen and Immigration Services’ (USCIS) processing suspensions.

The Migration Policy Institute states that over 1.2 million citizens are married to non-citizens who are not yet permanent residents. The Department of Homeland Security reported that in 2018 about 268,000 spouses of US citizens became permanent residents. The six female and male US citizen plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging this CARES Act provision have been married to their non-citizen spouses between two and six years. Additionally, each family has between one and five US citizen children.

Denying US citizens needed support in the face of a crisis because they file taxes with a spouse’s ITIN number undermines their right to marriage and family. This is especially harsh when the USCIS’s reaction to the coronavirus crisis prevents citizens from moving forward in the process to obtain their spouses’ legal residencies and social security numbers.

The CARES Act reverts to an irrational hostility against Americans married to “foreigners.” It discriminates against male and female citizens even though they have made an extra effort to correctly file income taxes. Non-citizens without social security numbers are required to file and pay taxes by applying for individual taxpayer identification numbers. Citizens and their spouses who went through the trouble of obtaining an ITIN number to file taxes were doing their best to meet their civic responsibility.

It makes no sense to punish anyone for trying to correctly file income taxes. But the CARES legislation is egregious as it reestablishes an irrational antagonism to “the foreign” that historically harmed Americans because of their choice of marriage.  Such a premise was rightfully rejected almost 90 years ago. It should not have been reincarnated now.

Source: Congress Reincarnates Discrimination Against American Citizens Because of Who They Marry

COVID-19 Strikes South Asia’s Minorities Whose Rights Are Already Threatened

Good overview of the effects on minorities:

A new report warns that the minorities and other marginalised communities are even more exposed to the worst impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, which is hitting South Asia. It has come at a time when governments are inflicting sustained assaults on their rights. Minorities face severe obstacles in accessing their right to nationality amidst rising majoritarian nationalism across many parts of the South Asia, says the South Asia Collective (SAC) in its annual flagship report, South Asia State of Minorities Report.

The report, which focuses on migrants, refugees and the stateless, is the outcome of a collaborative initiative of researchers and activists from across South Asia, highlights how numerous communities, including religious minorities, are denied official refugee or minority status by politicised and discriminatory citizenship laws, leaving them deprived of essential rights and services. This means that they are even more exposed to the worst impacts of the pandemic.

“While the virus has the potency to kill, poor governance choices can weaponize this potency,” says Joshua Castellino, Executive Director of Minority Rights Group International (MRG). “Stirring hate and attributing blame underscores two things: an inability of effective governance in solving a grave problem without playing blame games; and the real possibility that the life of the virus will be prolonged if left lurking amidst the most vulnerable communities.”

With more than 75 per cent of the world’s known stateless populations belonging to minority groups, according to the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR), this disproportionate impact on minority communities is also an issue of concern in South Asia.

“Minorities in the region face a range of discriminatory exclusions and restrictions in relationship to citizenship, in breach of their international human rights, which also leaves them vulnerable to denial of other rights and access to basic services, including unfortunately access to health care and information in their own languages during the pandemic crisis,” says Dr Fernand de Varennes, UN Special Rapporteur on Minority Issues.

Longstanding challenges facing minorities such as the Rohingya of Myanmar, the Urdu-speaking minority of Bangladesh, as well as the emerging situation in Assam in north-eastern Indian where almost 2 million people are at risk of losing their citizenship, highlight that statelessness is a minority issue and a human rights issue in South Asia, as it is globally’.

The report also provides an overview of the overall state of minorities in countries across South Asia, covering events of 2019 and the beginning of 2020. Across many parts of the region, majoritarian nationalism and divisive rhetoric are on the march, animating hate speech and targeted violence against minorities, as well as ongoing socio-economic exclusion, likely to be further exacerbated amidst the COVID-19 pandemic.

“As some governments in the region draw on divisive rhetoric and escalate measures curtailing civil liberties, there are concerns that the already challenging conditions for minorities in South Asia outlined in this report may further deteriorate in light of COVID-19,” says Deepak Thapa of Social Science Baha in Nepal, a member of the South Asia Collective (SAC) which produced the report.

The report presents chapters on six countries:

In India, 1.9 million were rendered de facto stateless in Assam by the National Register of Citizens (NRC). The Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) concurrently weaponised the discourse of minority rights against Muslims, protecting every other relevant religious group. Meanwhile, the Rohingya report food scarcity and child labour, while Kashmiris suffered a lockdown, communications blackout, and detention, including torture. Deprived of refugee status, numerous vulnerable refugee communities cannot access essential protections.

In Bangladesh, the report finds so called ‘untouchability’ to be a major barrier to accessing their fundamental rights as citizens for Dalits, causing regular displacement and eviction. Violence has been perpetrated against indigenous communities, including communal attacks, land-grabbing, rape, killing, and abduction. Developments in the citizenship law have left Bangladesh’s Urdu-speaking minority, often referred to as “Biharis” precarious, and could have far-reaching consequences. On top of restricted movement and poor living conditions, the Rohingya report extrajudicial killings.

In Afghanistan, peace talks with the Taliban and a dispute over September’s presidential election represent severe concern for women and minorities. 72,000 refugees from North Waziristan live in limbo without refugee status or access to vital services. Meanwhile, the Hindu, Sikh and Shi’a Hazara populations face ongoing discrimination. The minority Ismaili community suffers double discrimination, facing severely limited access to essential services and marginalisation by Sunnis and Shi’as alike.

In Pakistan, Afghan refugees and Bangladeshi migrants seeking citizenship face legal dead-ends that deprive them of vital rights, limit economic opportunities, and leave them facing disciplinary interventions and police hostility. The Rohingya, who cannot even theoretically qualify for citizenship, are at risk of arbitrary detention and harassment and are often denied access to healthcare and education.

Aid is drying up for Nepal’s Bhutanese refugees; essentials are being withdrawn and UNHCR schools and clinics are to be shut down by the end of 2020. Dalits report physical and structural violence. The report highlights how Nepal’s increasingly close ties with China endanger its Tibetan refugee community, already at constant risk of deportation and exploitation; Chinese President Xi Jinping’s visit to Kathmandu in 2019 was met with strict surveillance and the reported detention of activists.

In Sri Lanka, Sinhala-Buddhist nationalism and the spectres of extremism and forced conversion are major drivers of religious discrimination. Christians have suffered intimidation and the attack or closure of places of worship. The 2019 Easter Sunday attacks precipitated a violent backlash against local Muslim and Muslim refugee communities alike. Long classed as foreigners, and despite the recent grant of citizenship, hill country Tamils are left ‘neither here nor there’ and face barriers to essential rights.

The SAC report, published on April 29, advises all South Asian nations to accede to UN conventions on refugees and statelessness, to protect and support refugee populations. It asks them to enact comprehensive anti-discrimination laws, repealing those laws which discriminate, and introducing legislation that protects refugee populations. It urges civil society to advance dialogue and initiatives across the region, to understand and address the issues facing all minorities.

“This report emphasizes the importance of good governance in showing how we can collectively pass this test of humanity,” says MRG Executive Director Castellino. “Written by researchers steeped in the long term future and stability of their countries, they emphasize how putting vulnerable groups at the forefront of all prevention, mitigation and eradication efforts, irrespective of their identity, is key to realising the incredible human vibrancy that exists in every country in the region.” [IDN-InDepthNews – 30 April 2020]

Source: COVID-19 Strikes South Asia’s Minorities Whose Rights Are Already Threatened