“White settler revisionism” threatens Métis-Crown reconciliation

The complexities of identity, “peoplehood” and rights:

The 2016 census revealed explosive growth in the self-identified Métis population in Canada. The 51.2 percent growth of self-identified Métis from 2006 to 2016 easily surpassed the growth of First Nations and Inuit populations.

The growth is spread unevenly across Canada. Notably, the Métis population skyrocketed in areas where no historic Métis communities were located. Recently published research by scholars Adam Gaudry and Darryl Leroux reveals that the self-identified Métis populations in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick surged by 900 and 450 percent, respectively.

Clearly, demography alone cannot explain the trend. According to Gaudry and Leroux, people in eastern Canada are claiming Métis identity based on Indigenous ancestry revealed through genealogy. They call the practice of reimagining racial identity based on the existence of long-ago Indigenous ancestors as “white settler revisionism.” Many of those claiming to be Métis base their revisionist identity on the mistaken assumption that a mix of European and Indigenous ancestors is a sufficient basis to claim a Métis identity.

Far from being a harmless phenomenon, white settler revisionism systematically devalues Métis peoplehood by disregarding the process that led to the ethnogenesis of the Métis Nation.

The Métis Nation arose in the specific period after European contact and prior to European control of the specific geographical area referred to as the Métis homeland. The Métis homeland is a vast area now covered by the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, and stretches into portions of Ontario, British Columbia and the Northwest Territories, as well as the northernmost plains of the United States.

The mass usurpation of Métis identity also has the potential to derail efforts at reconciliation between Indigenous people and the federal government.

Indeed, widespread assertion of Métis identity has the potential to stymie future policy frameworks. The Daniels decision, which held that Métis people are to be considered “Indians” for the purposes of section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867, raises the possibility that the federal government will be required to provide more programs and services to Métis people.

Policy-makers must have a clear idea of the scope and distribution of a population requiring government support and engagement. The proliferation of dubious claims of Métis identity in disparate geographic areas poses serious obstacles to policy objectives.

The unscrupulous practices of organizations claiming to represent Métis people cannot be ignored. The Métis Federation of Canada, for example, does not require their members to prove Métis ancestry. Neither does the Bras d’Or Lake Métis Nation. To join these organizations, prospective members must simply demonstrate that they have an Indigenous ancestor. This ancestor can be Métis, Inuit or First Nations.

But the Métis Nation is not a simple conglomeration of ancestors with mixed ancestry. These organizations are creating chaos by convincing millions of Canadians that they are Métis, regardless of a lack of ancestral connection to the Métis Nation.

The Métis National Council and its provincial organizations, on the other hand, have meticulously crafted citizenship criteria that require concrete proof of Métis ancestry. In short, applicants must self-identify as Métis and demonstrate that they have an ancestral connection to the Métis Nation that arose in the historic Métis homeland.

Canada must intervene to ensure that the Métis National Council is not lost among an avalanche of illegitimate organizations. The federal government has begun this process by providing funding in its 2017 budget to the Métis National Council and its affiliated organizations. The money is going toward governance capacity and to support the council’s membership registry.

But more action is needed. Ottawa must affirm the Métis National Council’s resolution declaring that “there is only one Métis Nation, and that the geographic homeland of the Métis Nation is the historic Northwest which entered into Confederation in 1870 through the negotiations of the Métis Provisional Government led by President Louis Riel.” Only a clear and unequivocal statement will have the intended effect of silencing specious claims to Métis identity.

Additionally, policy-makers in Ottawa must understand that enabling the federal incorporation of dubious organizations like the Métis Federation of Canada could be harmful to reconciliation efforts with the Métis people.

Finally, Canada should provide funding to the Métis National Council so it can judicially intervene in response to illegitimate legal claims to Métis rights. A number of these claims have arisen in recent decades. Most recently, unsuccessful Métis rights claimants in New Brunswick sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada a decision by the New Brunswick Court of Appeal that upheld the lower-court ruling that no historic Métis community existed in the province.

The Métis Nation and the federal government are on the cusp of achieving lasting agreements that will facilitate reconciliation and a just resolution to generations of conflict. But the proliferation of white settler revisionism and the mass usurpation of Métis identity threaten those prospects. The federal government must take seriously the threat posed to the Métis Nation by white settler revisionism, and continue to enact policy reforms to support the Métis National Council.

via “White settler revisionism” threatens Métis-Crown reconciliation

Saudi Shura Council approves citizenship amendment study | GulfNews.com

Inching forward:

History could be in the making in Saudi Arabia after the Shura Council cleared the first hurdle by approving a study of two proposals to amend the citizenship law and allow women to pass on the Saudi citizenship to their children.

The proposals were initially submitted by three members in the previous term — Haya Al Manee’, Thuraya Abaid and Wafa Teeba — and taken up by two current members — Latifa Al Shaalan and Atta Al Subaiti.

Following a heated debate at the council on Tuesday, 63 members voted in favour of the amendments, ensuring that they are passed. They now go to the security committee that will present a final report to be discussed by the council at a later stage.

During the discussion on Tuesday, Shura member Fahd Al Enezi, a legal expert, said he vehemently opposed the amendments, resorting to religion to highlight his argument.

“Children must be attributed to their fathers, not to their mothers as is clearly stated in our religion,” he said. “A Saudi woman has the option to marry a non-Saudi. It is her choice. However, the citizenship is not her option and she is aware that her children will not obtain the Saudi citizenship.”

However, Faisal Al Fadil, also a legal expert, said that citizenship is a human right within the religion and is part of the fight against discrimination.

Mohammad Al Ali used economic arguments to call for defeating the proposals.

“Saudi Arabia is basically a desert nation and the quantity of water is limited,” he said as he presented virtual statistics about the high population in case Saudi women passed on their citizenship to their children, Saudi daily Okaz reported on Wednesday.

Abdullah Al Harbi warned of a waste of resources.

“Most of those born to Saudi mothers are competent and not giving them the Saudi citizenship is a loss to an efficient segment in the Saudi society, especially that they grew up in the kingdom and were educated here,” he said.

“Most countries allow women to pass on their citizenship, including in some Arab countries that have high population figures but whose economic development standards do not keep up with those of Saudi Arabia.”

He said that granting the citizenship would alleviate economic burdens for families and ensure promises of a brighter future for the children.

The issue of residency permits and entry visas required from non-Saudis living in the kingdom hampers the academic progress of the sons and daughters studying abroad since they have to go back to Saudi Arabia before their expiry, he said.

“The sons and daughters who are born in Saudi Arabia and grow up here develop strong links to their family and the Saudi society. Such attributes instill in them a sense of allegiance and belonging. However, if they are treated after graduation from colleges as foreigners, they are bound to face a multitude of hurdles even if they are top of their classes,” Al Harbi said.

Iqbal Darandari said she fully supported the amendment proposals.

“True faith is to be fair to all people,” she said. “There are children born here in Saudi Arabia to Saudi mothers. They grew up here and they know no other land. Where will they go if they do not have the citizenship?”

Darandari said that everyone should feel they are accountable before God for not assisting people.

In her argument, Noora Al Musaad said there was a deep need for endorsing the amendments.

“Most countries across the world allow mothers to pass on their citizenship to their children,” she said. “What we now have is a form of discrimination.”

via Saudi Shura Council approves citizenship amendment study | GulfNews.com

How the Australian Constitution, and its custodians, ended up so wrong on dual citizenship

For those interested, a good analysis of how Australia ended up in this mess regarding dual citizenship and political qualifications by Hal Colebatch of University of New South Wales:

The final session of the constitutional convention was held in Melbourne early in 1898. There was no further discussion of what became the now-infamous section 44, and a drafting committee took over to prepare a final draft.

Edmund Barton – soon to become Australia’s first prime minister – was the chair and dominant figure. He insisted on working till 4 or 5am, even though the other two members of the committee had gone to bed and only Robert Garran, the secretary, was left to maintain the illusion of a committee.

After four days of drafting, Barton presented the convention, on its second-last day, with 400 amendments. He proposed a three-hour break for the delegates to study them, after which they could be put to the vote en bloc.

Barton assured the convention that there was only one amendment of substance – to section 44(ii). What he did not say was that section 44(i) had been completely rewritten, changing it from an active voice (“done any act whereby”) to a passive voice (“is a subject or citizen … or is entitled to”).

No attention was drawn to this change, there was no explanation of it, and there was no time for debate on any clause unless someone objected to it. The constitutional text that proved so significant more than a century later was a last-minute change, drafted in private and accepted out of weariness.

In his history of the convention, J.A. La Nauze points out that, by this stage, the delegates “had had enough”, but muses:

it may one day interest a curious lawyer to inquire whether judicial review has lingered with significant consequences on new words approved on trust and intended … merely ‘to put the wishes of the convention in more complete and concise form’.

As it turned out, it interested more than the curious lawyer, and created a problem which has yet to be adequately managed.

Appealing to the umpire?

The constitution was rather unclear about how these provisions would be enforced. It said both that questions about qualification could be settled by each house, but also that “any person” who believed that an elected representative was disqualified by section 44 could sue them in “any court of competent jurisdiction”.

In any case, there was little call for either until the High Court decided in 1999 that the UK was a foreign power.

Even then it refused to hear a case calling for Tony Abbott and Julia Gillard to produce evidence they had renounced their UK citizenship, on the basis that they had declared that they were qualified, and so the court should presume that they were. To do otherwise would be a vexation and an abuse of the court’s time.

But when the court did deign to interest itself in the matter, it took the traditional High Court view that it was not interested in the problem, or what the writers of the constitution were trying to do, but only with the possible meaning that a black-letter lawyer could squeeze from these words, irrespective of its impact on the governing of Australia.

Where does this leave us?

The situation now is that the qualifications for candidature for the Australian parliament are set by the parliament, but the disqualifications are largely set by foreign governments via the High Court. This diminishes the ability of electorates to choose the representative they want (though, when given the chance, electorates show what they think of the High Court’s action by returning the ousted members in the ensuing byelection).

And the High Court’s escapade in the china shop is not yet over, for it has yet to rule on the disqualification of those who are “entitled to” foreign citizenship, even if they have not applied for it. If the court applied the same logic that it has used in the cases already decided, this would disqualify not only any Jew, but also anyone with a Jewish parent, grandparent or spouse, all of whom are entitled to Israeli citizenship under the Israeli Law of Return.

The best course would be to start with recognising the problem, rather than searching for a preferred solution. In contemporary Australia, identities are often complex, and citizenship entitlements may be multiple and overlapping. How these are to be recognised in the qualifications for candidature demands a period of public discussion culminating in political action.

The only way we could get this is to take the matter out of the hands of the High Court and foreign governments and return the task of defining qualifications and disqualifications for candidature to parliament. This could be done by adding to section 44 the phrase “until the parliament otherwise provides”, which is used in section 30 on qualifications, and at a number of other points in the constitution.

This would be a logical and constitutional response to the political problem that has landed on us. If the five main parties in the parliament (all of which have had their parliamentary representation threatened by the High Court’s actions) supported a referendum to achieve this change, it would probably be carried.

The voters, too, as they showed in New England and Bennelong, have had enough. They want the political leaders to lead.

via How the Australian Constitution, and its custodians, ended up so wrong on dual citizenship

Son of Russian spies can travel home to Canada, judge rules

I agree with the government on this one. And the brothers have lived abroad most of their lives with the main connection to Canada being their passport:

A judge has ordered the Trudeau government to issue citizenship documents—and a passport—to the Toronto-born son of elite Russian spies, ruling that the 23-year-old should be allowed to return to Canada even though the Supreme Court is still pondering whether to hear one last appeal in his controversial case.

Alexander Vavilov was stripped of his Canadian citizenship “through no fault of his own,” the judge ruled, and after winning it back last summer at the Federal Court of Appeal, he should not be forced to wait in limbo while Ottawa tries to convince the country’s top court to overturn that decision. Instead, the Liberals should reinstate Vavilov’s revoked citizenship—and allow him to come home—pending any potential ruling from the Supreme Court.

“It is difficult to accept that issuing these documents to this one person will cause significant and irreparable harm to the public interest,” wrote Justice Wyman Webb of the Federal Court of Appeal, in his Jan. 19 decision. “There is no allegation that Mr. Vavilov did anything wrong.”

Ottawa has fought for years to keep Vavilov from re-entering his country of birth, and despite this latest ruling the government is still doing all it can to keep him out. Instead of conceding defeat, Justice Department lawyers filed yet another motion last week, asking the Federal Court of Appeal to reconsider. The feds remain adamant that nothing should happen on the contentious file until the Supreme Court decides, once and for all, whether Vavilov is indeed a Canadian.

The high court has yet to announce whether it will weigh in on the matter, and is under no deadline to do so.

Vavilov was born in Toronto in 1994 as Alexander Philip Anthony Foley, the second son of a husband-and-wife team of deep-cover KGB agents who slipped into Canada during the Cold War and stole the identities of two dead babies from Montreal: Donald Howard Heathfield and Tracey Lee Ann Foley. Alex and his older brother, Timothy, spent their childhood oblivious to the fact that their parents’ real names were Andrey Bezrukov and Elena Vavilova, or that their mom and dad were prized assets of Russia’s foreign intelligence service. The boys were still young when the family moved to France, then Massachusetts—where, in 2010, the couple was arrested in a high-profile FBI raid that later inspired the hit TV series The Americans. Tim was 20 when his parents were exposed; Alex was 16.

After the bust made headlines around the world, immigration officials in Ottawa concluded that both brothers were never Canadian to begin with, despite being born here, because their parents were “employees in Canada of a foreign government,” a rare exception to the birthright rule under the Citizenship Act. Now Russian citizens who changed their last name to Vavilov, Alex and Tim have been battling in court to regain their Canadian status, arguing, among many other things, that they should not be punished for their parents’ espionage.

Though they lived abroad most of their lives, the brothers always travelled with Canadian passports and identified themselves as Canadians. “It is an integral part of my identity, the way others recognize me and is a recognition of certain values,” Alex told Maclean’slast year. “It is unacceptable that that the government may strip me of my rights just because it wants to.”

The feds appear especially eager to keep Tim, the eldest brother, from coming back. According to a report prepared by a senior immigration official, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) has told the government that Tim not only knew the truth about his parents’ double lives, but had pledged to join them—having been “sworn in” by the SVR, the KGB’s post-Soviet successor, before his mother and father were arrested.

Specific evidence to support that claim has never been revealed, and Tim, now 27, denies the accusation. “I am aware that there have been some media reports that my parents were ‘grooming’ me for espionage,” he wrote in one sworn affidavit. “These allegations are not true. It has been stated by the FBI that for over 10 years my home was bugged, however no evidence of my involvement has ever been presented.”…

via Son of Russian spies can travel home to Canada, judge rules – Macleans.ca

A reckoning on Black people and marijuana is a long time coming: Paradkar

Important aspect with compelling arrest stats:

As the banned substance begins to burgeon into a multi-billion-dollar industry, the once-petty crooks, many of them Black, with the grassroots know-how of how to run the business and who could become contributing members of society, are once again being shut out because they have criminal records.

The government has talked about amnesty for past marijuana crimes that would mean erasure of those records. But it is unlikely to take any action until after legalization — and already, others with money have plunked their grubby fingers in this pie to make more money.

This includes, of course, that shameless hypocrite and former chief of multiple police forces Julian Fantino, who helped passed into law Bill C-10 that included mandatory minimum sentences on people for having as few as six plants.

On Friday, The Canadian Press reported that a group of frustrated lawyers in Toronto is considering a class-action lawsuit against the government to push it into granting cannabis amnesty.

They should just do it.

Some advocates are also seeking an apology.

A reckoning of the unfairness with which anything related to marijuana has been treated is a long time coming.

Even the usage of the word marijuana — which comes from Mexico—came into being during the Prohibition Era to warn off Americans by appealing to their xenophobic sensibilities with the suggestion that it could lead to the intermingling of races.

In Canada, too, marijuana has proven handy as a system of racial control. In July last year, the Star published an analysis of 10 years of Toronto police data — including two years when Fantino was police chief — to show that Black people with no history of criminal convictions were three times more likely to be arrested for possession of small amounts of marijuana than white people.

The users are Black and white at about equal rates, but the people behind bars are disproportionately Black.

More recently, the American experience shows that even in states where the plant is legalized, while overall numbers of arrests have plummeted, Black people are still arrested at higher rates.

Four times higher in Washington, D.C., 10 times higher in Alaska.

From Richard Nixon’s so-called “war on drugs” to Ronald Reagan’s drug war to Bill Clinton’s “tough on crime” laws, the crackdown on drugs has always been an assault on race.

The scholar Michelle Alexander points out in her seminal book The New Jim Crow that Nixon’s White House Chief of Staff H.R. Haldeman recalled that Nixon “emphasized that you have to face the fact that the whole problem is really the Blacks. The key is to devise a system that recognizes this while not appearing to.”

The Reagan administration created an indelible link between drug abuse and Black people, she wrote in HuffPost. It hired staff whose responsibility it was “to publicize inner-city crack babies, crack mothers, crack whores, and drug-related violence.”

Clinton’s policies wrought the highest increase in number of people imprisoned.

But a change was coming. The face of drug users in the public imagination was getting lighter-skinned. Think Breaking Bad. Ozark.

“Changing attitudes and policies became possible in large part because the media was no longer saturated with images of Black and brown drug dealers,” Alexander said at a Drug Policy Reform conference in 2017. “The colour of drug users and dealers got whiter in the public imagination, and so we, as a nation, got nicer.”

Nicer in Canada would mean erasing criminal records without a fight, the flawed structure of the RCMP’s national criminal record database notwithstanding. That database can show whether someone has a record for possessing an illegal drug, but not necessarily which one, according to a report in Global News.

“That means that erasing marijuana possession (or trafficking) records could turn into a painstaking, manual process, involving searches in court and police archives across the country.”

No reason why people imprisoned for petty crimes should pay for the carelessness of those trafficking in power.

via A reckoning on Black people and marijuana is a long time coming | Toronto Star

Canada’s immigration program for migrant caregivers under review | Toronto Star

Will be interesting to see the results of the review and any subsequent changes:
Foreign caregivers will not be eligible for permanent residence if they have not accrued two years of employment by Nov. 29, 2019, according to a notice posted by the Immigration Department.

The federal government is currently reviewing Canada’s two programs for foreign caregivers — one for those caring for children and the other for those caring for adults with high medical needs — and has yet to decide whether to do away with them completely, renew them or come up with replacements.

“Both programs were launched as five-year pilots, including a date that they expire. With a launch date of November 29, 2014, this means they will expire on November 29, 2019,” said Immigration Canada spokesperson Faith St. John.

“An assessment is underway on both of these pilots. This assessment will help determine what pathway to permanent residence should be in place after that date. Options to replace the two pilots or make them permanent will be reviewed and announced before they expire in 2019.”

Caregivers and their advocates said they were caught off-guard by the announcement posted online over the weekend, prompting fear that this could mark the end of the special pathway to permanent residency for foreign caregivers.

“Many caregivers are confused and frustrated because of the turnaround from the government,” said University of Toronto social work professor Rupaleem Bhuyan, who leads the Migrant Mothers Project, a community-university research initiative to study the effect of immigration policies.

Bhuyan noted that the government has continued to process and issue caregiver applications since last November without telling them until now that they would not be eligible for permanent residence.

The government announcement has already created a buzz among the caregiver community here and abroad.

“A lot of people, even those in the Philippines, are talking about it. There is so much anxiety out there,” said Marilyn Battad, who came to Canada from the Philippines in June 2016 as a caregiver.

“We leave our family to come and work in Canada with the hope that we could bring our family here and have a better life. Some have lost hope now.”

Not only does the 2019 cut-off affect the caregivers arriving now, many like Battad could also be affected if they fail to meet the two-year employment requirement by the deadline for reasons beyond their control.

Battad, 37, was released from her first caregiver job just six weeks after she arrived in the Northwest Territories. It took her 10 months to find another job in Nobleton, Ont., and secure a new work permit, which expires next April.

Bhuyan said it typically takes caregivers at least eight months to secure a new job and obtain a new work permit

Canada’s unique program is believed to be the only one in the world that provides access to permanent status for foreign caregivers after two years of full-time employment as a caregiver. The access to permanent residency is an incentive to make up for the job’s relative low pay and sometimes unpleasant work conditions.

In 2014, the previous Conservative government overhauled the program by capping the number of caregivers who can access permanent residency at 5,500 a year and imposing new requirements for language and post-secondary education.

Under the revamped program, only 20 per cent, or 555 caregivers out of 2,730 applicants, were granted permanent residency in the three years after the changes were made. An average of 8,000 caregivers were granted permanent status annually between 2006 and 2014 under the previous program.

“This is another underhanded way for the government to quietly take away the pathway for permanent residency for caregivers. This is not OK,” said Anna Malla of the Caregivers Action Centre in Toronto.

“The need for caregivers for child care and home care is permanent and we need permanent solutions. Caregivers need stable immigration status to do the job well. They provide a very important service to make it possible for Canadians to go to work.”

Manuela Gruber Hersch, president of the Association of Caregiver & Nanny Agencies Canada, said she believes foreign caregivers will continue to come and work in Canada even without the bait of permanent residency.

“Ideally, they would like to become permanent residents, but the wage is much higher in Canada (and) they are not going to stop coming,” said Gruber Hersch.

via Canada’s immigration program for migrant caregivers under review | Toronto Star

How political Islam is gaining ground in Southeast Asia despite the fall of Islamic State | South China Morning Post

More on Southeast Asia and the risks of political Islam:

The religious insurgency in the southern Philippines, which saw the capture of Marawi by fighters aligned to Islamic State last year, revealed the violent power of political religiosity. Given that Southeast Asia is home to a large proportion of the global Muslim population, transregional alliances formed between Southeast Asian terror groups and IS represent the possibility of religious warfare in the Middle East spilling over into Southeast Asia. The battlefield defeat of IS should not lull anyone into complacency. As a guerilla group, its scattered warriors remain a threat to nations, particularly the home states to which they are expected to return.

The growth of political Islam is undermining the very vocabulary of the public sphere in Southeast Asia

What unites the different manifestations of political Islam, ranging from electoral participation and street politics to outright terrorist war, is the idea of the capture of state power and its use to implement religious law. If there is a tussle, it is between the parliamentary and insurrectionary paths to power. However, the political outcome would be similar in both cases: the establishment of confessional states that could be expected to disenfranchise not only non-Muslims but also Muslims who owe national allegiance to secular democratic polities.

Indeed, what is frightening is how the growth of political Islam is undermining the very vocabulary of the public sphere in Southeast Asia. Words such as “liberalism”, “pluralism” and “democracy” have become suspect among even mainstream politicians, to say nothing of “secularism” or “socialism”. Liberals, pluralists and democrats are finding themselves in the defensive position of having to work their way delicately around the discursive space that the religious right has captured.

The rise of political Islam has generated countervailing forces in other religions. The popularity of a Thai Buddhist monk is a case in point. He rose to prominence after urging Buddhists across Thailand to burn down a mosque as punishment for every monk killed in the insurgency in the country’s south. He has made common cause with a monk in Myanmar famous for his anti-Muslim views. Given the violent dispossession of Myanmar’s Muslim Rohingya population last year, the potential of religious intolerance to dismantle the known order is immense.

In a far cry from the notion of Southeast Asia being a mosaic of religious identities, the chief threat to the region today comes not from foreign predators or new global ideological wars, but from the agency that religious dissension is gaining as a marker in regional relations.

Religions do not pass, but their violent politicisation can. Southeast Asian Muslims must understand that, while they belong legitimately to the global Islamic community or the ummah, they exist as well among other communities. China to the north and India to the west – both largely non-Muslim-majority countries – constitute a major segment of the world’s population. Europe and the Americas are largely non-Muslim as well. It is only the Middle East, Central Asia and a small part of South Asia which are demographic partners of Muslim Southeast Asia.

That partnership cannot challenge the economic, military and ideational heft of the rest of the world. Even if the non-Muslim sphere were to be riven by conflict between its two foremost players – the United States and China – it would pull together to resist any encroachment into its religio-political identity.
Support for Islamic State? In Indonesia, there’s an app for that

Equally, however, global powers cannot wish political Islam and its extremes away. The ability of terrorist groups to disrupt everyday life reiterates an old truth: it is not superiority of numbers and power that matters but what even a handful of people can do to disrupt peaceful political processes and change. After all, the essentially guerilla tactics employed by al-Qaeda and IS drew out nothing less than the concerted efforts of much more powerful states.

A moment of hiatus has appeared in the tired militarisation of global affairs. That moment will not last long. Political Islam’s Manichean division of the world into the spheres of believers and infidels is being felt keenly in Southeast Asia.

Indonesia, home to the largest number of Muslims on Earth, will be the test case of how that division plays out. A violent showdown will be avoided if most Indonesian Muslims subscribe to the idea that they can be faithful to their religion while owing political allegiance to a non-religious state. If the Indonesian state gives way to the demands of the PKS, the stage will be set for more intensive great-power intervention in Southeast Asia.

Unlike economic systems, which promise salvation in the present, religions do so in a hereafter that can destroy the present on the way to its fulfilment.

Political Islam is a danger.

via How political Islam is gaining ground in Southeast Asia despite the fall of Islamic State | South China Morning Post

Moderation, the “elusive virtue”

Nice reflections on moderation and compromise by Kenneth Dewar:

…Canadians have taken some satisfaction from having avoided the worst aspects of this movement, at least so far. Moderation sometimes seems to be built into our national character, expressed in the understated celebration of the 150th anniversary of Confederation and the belief among some that it would be better not to celebrate it at all. It has often seemed that Canada’s history is downright dull compared with the drama of, say, American, French and Russian history, and recurring efforts are made to enliven it.

But it may well be that dullness is what makes Canadian history interesting, even if it sometimes masks varieties of populism, radicalism and revolt. Craiutu quotes Adam Michnik as saying something to the effect that the strength of democracy is its greyness, echoing Crick and striking an evocative chord in Canada: “Democracy is a continuous articulation of particular interests, a diligent search for compromise among them, a marketplace of emotions, hatreds, and hopes; it is eternal imperfection, a mixture of sinfulness, saintliness, and monkey business.” Compromise and monkey business have been features of Canadian democracy since the time of John A. Macdonald, though in recent years the extremism that Craiutu points to elsewhere has manifested itself as hyper-partisanship in Canada.

In retrospect, the golden age of moderation in Canadian national politics was the quarter-century following the Second World War, even if at the time it might have seemed otherwise, with the Pipeline Debate and the personal animosity between Lester Pearson and John Diefenbaker dividing the country. It was as a result of moderation that the welfare state, and the prosperity arising from it, emerged in full in the 1960s and early 1970s. The political challenges were significant. For example, some provinces had already introduced health insurance in one form or another, offering competing models ─ notably the Saskatchewan model introduced by the CCF government of Tommy Douglas, and the Alberta model favoured by Ernest Manning’s Social Credit government. In Ottawa, Diefenbaker appointed a royal commission, the traditional instrument of compromise and conciliation, which smoothed the subsequent passage of universal public health insurance by the Pearson Liberals.

The fact that some regard this as a triumph of social democracy and others as the implementation of managed capitalism is an indication of the differences that had to be negotiated by Pearson’s ministers and officials. Walter Gordon, Judy LaMarsh, Allan MacEachen and Tom Kent (behind the scenes) faced criticism from opposition parties and interests within their own party, as well as federal-provincial jurisdictional obstacles. They succeeded in introducing a national contributory pension plan (CPP), Medicare and a national social assistance program (Canada Assistance Plan), but not without hard work, political skill and courage, illustrating the truth stated by Isaiah Berlin and quoted by Craiutu: “The middle ground is a notoriously exposed, dangerous, and ungrateful position.” It didn’t hurt that during this time the country was basking in the glow of Centennial Year celebrations and Expo 67.

Berlin was also fond of quoting the philosopher Immanuel Kant, on human nature: “Out of timber so crooked as that from which man is made nothing entirely straight can built.” The idea of the crooked timber of humanity provided a foundation for Berlin’s moderation. Perfect solutions were beyond human ingenuity, as likely to lead to suffering as to failure. This offers little comfort to anyone seeking simple remedies, or to those who think they are in the absolute right and their opponents in the absolute wrong. It is a salutary thought, however, as one contemplates the domestic politics and international relations of the present day, and it highlights the need for a good dose of moderation in the coming year – the “elusive virtue” so shrewdly noted by Craiutu.

via Moderation, the “elusive virtue”

This is what an immigration policy for the 21st century should actually look like – The Washington Post

Robert Samuelson on the weaknesses of current US immigration policies and advocating for a shift towards more highly skilled workers:

….First, the existing system has increased U.S. poverty, driven by inflows of poorly skilled legal and illegal workers. It’s as if there were an agency called the Unskilled Workers Bureau dedicated to increasing U.S. poverty.

Consider. From 1980 to 2016, the number of people with incomes below the government poverty line rose by 11.3 million (from 29.3 million to 40.6 million). Fully two-thirds of those, or 7.6 million, were Hispanic. Much of this increase clearly reflected the impact of immigrants and their children.

Second, the status quo promotes lawlessness and repression that, rightly, offend — for different reasons — those on all sides of the immigration debate. One side sees undocumented immigrants as lawbreakers who should admit their crime and suffer the consequences by being deported. Given the estimated 11 million people here illegally, this seems doubtful. The other side views the unending enforcement actions — raids on homes and businesses — as the terrifying tactics of a police state that are unworthy of the United States. There is no real way of breaking this stalemate except by starting anew.

Third, skilled immigrants are good for the economy. True, they can’t single-handedly boost annual economic growth to 3 or 4 percent from the 2 percent-plus of recent years. But every little bit helps. One area where immigrants shine is entrepreneurship. In a study of new firms, the husband-wife team of economists William Kerr of Harvard University and Sari Pekkala Kerr of Wellesley College found that about one-quarter of company founders were immigrants.

All this is increasingly relevant, because after declining for a few years, immigration is again growing. Steven Camarota of the Center for Immigration Studies, a group favoring tighter immigration policies, estimates that new immigrants in 2016 totaled nearly 1.8 million, which — if confirmed by the final count — would tie with 1999 as the highest in history.

As a group, there are now more than 43 million immigrants in the United States, legal and illegal, representing about 13 percent of the population, reports the Migration Policy Institute, which generally supports looser policies. The U.S.-born children of immigrants constitute a group almost the same size. This means that about a quarter of the total U.S. population are either immigrants or their offspring.

What matters is how easily these new Americans integrate with the old Americans. There’s some good news. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine recently released two studies reporting significant gains among immigrants. Compared with U.S.-born workers, they are experiencing rising wages. More are going to college. Their English proficiency is advancing at historic rates.

But there’s a paradox. To make past immigration succeed, you need to limit present immigration. Otherwise, the pressures of coping with new groups becomes more contentious. How is poverty to be reduced if the ranks of the poor are constantly replenished with new immigrant poor? Admitting more low-paid workers makes it harder for the last wave of low-paid immigrants — their main competitors — to advance.

Similarly, more poor immigrant children will strain state and local school budgets. And there’s a whole array of cultural and historic differences between natives and immigrants — and among immigrants themselves. The ability to absorb new immigrants is one of the glories of the American project, but it is not infinite. It must give way to practical realities.

The outline of a common-sense immigration policy exists. What’s unclear is whether the Trump administration and its critics have the political courage to translate the general principles — many of which seem to command support — into a workable system that balances the needs of new and old Americans.

via This is what an immigration policy for the 21st century should actually look like – The Washington Post

Mixed marriage kids face citizenship woes | Malaysia.

Not unique to Malaysia:

Thousands of families of mixed marriages in Sabah are faced with complexity in obtaining citizenship status for their children, according to Sabah People’s Basic Rights Association President Lee Pun Yee.

He said in most cases, the problem arises when local residents marry foreigners without the status of a legal marriage.

The future of their children will then be affected due to their (parents) shortcomings and negligence.

“Over the past two years since 2015, we personally received 50 such cases from local residents who marry foreigners from Indonesia, China and the Philippines,” he said here, Tuesday.

“Most of them legalise their marriage only after their children are born, but so far none have been able to get citizenship status for their children despite numerous applications to the relevant agency,” he said.

Lee, who was accompanied by his Secretary Tan Cheng Hwee and committee member, Chen Hing Hiong, said the association had tried to assist by sending letters three times to the Home Affairs Ministry over the past two years to consider the plight of these families.

“We sent the letters to the ministry’s secretary-general, we don’t know if the minister has received the letters or just too busy to be bothered.

“The children are innocent but aren’t able to enjoy the privilege of being Malaysians due to their non-citizenship status.

“We therefore hope the ministry will consider granting them citizenship as stipulated under Section 15A of the Federal Constitution which states that the Federal Government may, in such special circumstances as it thinks fit, cause any person under the age of 21 years to be registered as a citizen,” he said.

He said they will be sending another letter to the ministry, this time directly to Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamid, who is also Home Minister, soon.

“I plan to go there by end of February and hope to receive a response from the ministry,” he said.

He also said citizenship status should be granted to the children, citing 92 similar cases in Sarawak where citizenship under Section 15A of the Federal Constitution was granted.

“Why they can do it for Sarawak, but not for Sabahans?,” he questioned.

He also apologised to the 50 families for not being able to help them soonest when they approached the association for help two years ago.

“Most of them are businessman, some working in companies, some are farmers, while their wives are housewives.

“This problem will not only affect their children, but the future of their children’s kids and the generations to come if not addressed,” he said.

The issue have also been raised in May last year, with National Registration Department Sabah Director Dato Ismail Ahmad quoting as advising and reminding locals that marriage without valid registration can bring complexity to their children in terms of citizenship status, education and employment opportunity. – Sherell Jeffrey

via Mixed marriage kids face citizenship woes | Daily Express Newspaper Online, Sabah, Malaysia.