Opinion: EU immigration policy is grist to the far-right mill

2019/03/12 Leave a comment

Would appear to be a similar dynamic at play in the U.S.:

Seven different EU immigration policy reform bills have been on the table for the last three years. And for three years, the bloc’s interior ministers have been fighting over them. They have been unable to come to an agreement, and they end each negotiation with the same lament: Something has to happen. Yet, nothing ever does.

The old Dublin Regulation, which stipulates that the country of first arrival is responsible for an immigrant, is still the law. Although almost all of the EU’s 28 interior ministers agree that the rule no longer works —  although they give very different reasons for why they think this is — they have yet to come up with a better solution.

A joint immigration and asylum policy that is somehow carried by all has failed to materialize.

Italy and Greece insist that new arrivals be distributed across the bloc. Hungary and Poland don’t want to take anyone. France and Germany see the countries of first arrival as bearing responsibility.

Now, at the last meeting of interior ministers before May’s European parliamentary elections, national representatives have officially admitted that they cannot come to an agreement. And with that admission, they are giving right-wing populists highly welcome campaign ammunition.

Far right will exploit the EU’s weaknesses

These will happily exploit the emotionally charged topic of immigration when making their plea to voters, as well as pillorying the EU’s inability to find a solution to this so-called crisis ahead of the May ballot. Italy’s radical right-wing interior minister, Matteo Salvini, will use that inability to justify closing Italian ports to refugees rescued at sea.

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban will use the collapse of negotiations to prop up his abstruse theory that Brussels seeks to flood his country with Muslims to “replace the people.”

Far-right parties across Europe, from the AfD in Germany and the FPÖ in Austria to the EKRE in Estonia, will no doubt spew similar nonsense.

German Interior Minister Horst Seehofer (CSU), who last year used immigration policy to instigate a coalition crisis in Berlin and promised to deliver a European solution to the issue, also went down in flames — having achieved absolutely nothing.

His immigrant repatriation agreement with the populist government in Italy has yet to come about  in fact, the opposite is now the case. Contrary to Germany’s wishes, Italy is threatening to put an end to Operation Sophia, the EU’s naval rescue mission in the Mediterranean. And despite having happily shaken hands with far-right radical Salvini over a done deal in June, there is not a thing Seehofer can do about it.

Empty hands

Now it will be easy to make the case for closing oneself off entirely, for borders, higher fences, and walls. The utterly divided EU has nothing to offer on immigration policy. The migration crisis that the right is always talking about does not exist at the moment; the number of arrivals to Europe has dropped dramatically.

But the EU is woefully unprepared for another rush like that of 2015. Europeans are not prepared for the next civil war, the next famine, or for immigrants fleeing their homes due to climate change. It is a scandal that this is the case just 11 weeks before European parliamentary elections. And it should surprise no one if the populists and anti-EU parties gain seats.

The real test, however, will come at the end of the year, when the EU negotiates the distribution of grant money for the next decade. Will states that take more immigrants get more money? Will those that take none be penalized by receiving less? The showdown has the potential to paralyze the EU, or even worse, destroy it entirely.

Source: Opinion: EU immigration policy is grist to the far-right mill

Filed under Immigration, Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

Swiss immigration rises again as ties with EU face test

2019/02/16 Leave a comment

The ongoing tension in Switzerland over immigration and sovereignty, even if the bulk is from European countries:

Immigration into Switzerland rose again last year, taking the foreign population further above 2 million as the wealthy country’s open-door policy for Europeans faces a right-wing challenge.

Neutral Switzerland allows free movement of people from the European Union and EFTA members Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway in return for enhanced access to the EU’s single market. Far-right activists complain this has swamped Switzerland with foreigners who now make up a quarter of the population.

The Swiss People’s Party and anti-EU AUNS group are readying a binding referendum under the Swiss system of direct democracy that would cancel the free-movement accord with the EU if talks to end the practice do not bear fruit within a year.

The Swiss government opposes this, calling instead to preserve free movement as an essential part of ties with the EU, Switzerland’s biggest trading partner and lifeblood for its export-reliant economy.

No date for a vote has been set yet.

Statistics released on Friday showed net immigration of EU/EFTA citizens rose by nearly 31,000 people in 2018, marginally more than in 2017.

Overall immigration – which is steered by quotas for other foreigners and temporary limits on some Balkan members of the EU – increased 2.9 percent to nearly 55,000 people.

That meant nearly 2.1 million foreigners – more than two-thirds of them from the EU and EFTA countries – lived in Switzerland at the end of last year.

Switzerland is wrestling with its approach to EU ties. Brussels wants a new treaty that would have the Swiss routinely adopt single-market rules and give EU citizens the same benefits that they get when living in EU member countries.

The Swiss government has launched domestic consultations to try to forge consensus on its response, but opposition from the right wing and normally pro-Europe left concerned about sacrificing Swiss sovereignty have left the outcome in doubt.

Source: Swiss immigration rises again as ties with EU face test

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , ,

Questions and Answers on the Report on Investor Citizenship and Residence Schemes in the European Union

2019/01/24 Leave a comment

Useful reference material on citizenship and investment immigration schemes:

Questions and Answers on the Report on Investor Citizenship and Residence Schemes in the European Union

1. Investor citizenship (“golden passport”) schemes

What are investor citizenship schemes?

Investor citizenship schemes are often referred to as “citizenships for sale” or “golden passports”.  They allow foreigners to be naturalised as a citizen of a country in return for an investment, provided certain criteria are fulfilled. Bulgaria, Cyprus, and Malta operate such schemes, where investors are required to invest between EUR 800,000 to EUR 2 million.

What is the EU’s competence in the area of nationality law?

It is for each Member State to lay down the conditions for the acquisition and loss of its nationality. However, these schemes are of common EU interest since every person holding the nationality of a Member States is at the same time a citizen of the Union. The European Court of Justice has found that, while it is for every Member State to lay down the conditions for the acquisition and loss of nationality, they have to do so with due regard to Union law. Member States must therefore take into account all rules that form part of the EU legal order, including international law, which requires a “genuine connection” between the State in question and the person that is granted citizenship.

The Commission’s report focusses on the naturalisation schemes that are classified as investor citizenship schemes, which are a new form of naturalisation that systematically grant citizenship based on an investment.

What is the problem with investor citizenship schemes?

Investor citizenship schemes create a range of risks for Member States and for the Union as a whole: in particular, security risks, risks of money laundering and corruption and tax evasion.  Such risks are exacerbated by the cross-border rights associated with citizenship of the Union.

The report found that applicants are often granted citizenship without any physical residence in the Member States concerned and without any genuine link to them.  The report also identifiesconcerns that the security checks applied to applicants for investor citizenship may not be robust enough and that Member States do not consult each other on applicants for investor citizenship, and do not inform each other of rejected applicants.  The report found certain grey areas in the application of anti-money laundering legislation, since agencies operating these schemes do not fall under the EU’s anti-money laundering requirements.

In addition, the transparency surrounding investor citizenship schemes is very limited: it is not always clear who applies for these schemes, who obtains the citizenship (and hence EU citizenship) and how the money raised by such schemes is spent.

How can such schemes pose money laundering risks?

The 4th Anti-Money Laundering Directive requires financial institutions and other entities (“obliged entities”) in the EU to perform customer due diligence checks. The 5th Anti-Money Laundering Directive, which entered into force on 9 July 2018, introduced an amendment requiring enhanced customer due diligence on nationals from third-countries who apply “for residence rights or citizenship in the Member State in exchange of capital transfers, purchase of property or government bonds, or investment in corporate entities in that Member State”.  Member States must transpose the Directive by 10 January 2020 at the latest and the Commission is working with them to ensure correct full and correct transposition.

Member States also have to ensure that the application of the EU rules on anti-money laundering are not circumvented under investor citizenship or residence schemes: Member States should ensure that funds paid by investor citizenship and investor residence applicants are channelled through bodies that qualify as “obliged entities” under the Anti-Money Laundering Directive.

In addition, Member States are encouraged to take into account the potential risks of money laundering linked to investor citizenship and residence schemes in their national risk assessments carried out under the EU anti-money laundering rules and take the necessary mitigating measures.

What has the Commission proposed as next steps regarding investor citizenship schemes?

The Commission will set up a group of experts from Member States that will work to address the specific risks posed by investor citizenship schemes.  It will also address the transparency of investor citizenship schemes and of discretionary naturalisation procedures, which permit acquisition of citizenship based on investment.  The group of experts shall put in place procedures for the exchange of information and statistics on such schemes, including the exchange of information concerning applicants whose applications for citizenship have been turned down in one Member State on grounds of posing a security risk.  Finally, the group should develop by the end of 2019 a common set of security checks for investor citizenship schemes, including risk management processes that take into account security, money laundering, tax evasion and corruption.

Is there a link between investor citizenship and residence schemes?

In some cases, investor residence schemes may facilitate the acquisition of citizenship.  In particular, a residence permit acquired by investment can be used under some Member States’ ordinary naturalisation procedures to provide fast-track access to permanent residence and then citizenship. In countries which have both citizenship and residence investor schemes, the investment required for the residence scheme may be taken into consideration to qualify for the investor citizenship scheme.

In addition, both schemes pose similar risks in terms of security, money laundering and tax evasion.

2. Investor residence (“golden visa”) schemes

What are investor residence schemes?

Investor residence schemes – often referred to as “golden visas” – grant a right of residence on a Member States’ territory to third country nationals on the basis of investment in the country.  They are issued at national level, and therefore do not entitle the permit holder to reside outside the issuing Member State. They do entitle the holder, however, to travel freely within the Schengen zone for a maximum of 90 days in any 180-day period. Currently, 20 Member States run such schemes: Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Estonia, France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain and the United Kingdom.

What is the EU’s competence as regards investor residence schemes?

Residence permits for foreign investors are not regulated at EU level and remain governed by national law. EU law regulates the entry conditions for specific categories of non-EU nationals (for example students and researchers, seasonal workers and intra-corporate transferees).

What type of investments are required under these schemes? 

Residence investor schemes have very different features, particularly as regards the nature and amount of investment. Investment amounts can range from EUR 13,500 to over EUR 5 million in the form of capital investment, investment in immovable property, investment in government bonds, or donations to an activity contributing to the public good charity or one-time contributions to the national budget. These options are not mutually exclusive, and some Member States allow for different types of investment and their combination.

What are the main risks of investor residence schemes identified by the Commission?

  •     Security risks: In a Schengen area without internal border controls, it is particularly important to ensure that the commonly agreed security checks are fully implemented, for example through centralised information systems such as: the Schengen Information System (SIS); the Visa Information System (VIS); EURODAC and the newly established Entry/Exist system (EES); and the Electronic Travel Information and Authorisation System (ETIAS). Member States must ensure that investor schemes do not undermine and jeopardise these security efforts by allowing them to circumvent these security checks. The Commission’s report has identified both a lack of available information and an important level of discretion in the way Member States approach security checks. For these reasons, the Commission will closely monitor compliance of existing investor residence schemes with EU law to ensure that all obligatory existing border and security checks are systematically and effectively carried out by Member States.
  •     Money laundering: Member States should ensure that funds paid by investor citizenship applicants are assessed according to the EU anti-money laundering rules. This includes enhanced customer due diligence checks on non EU-nationals who apply for residence rights and, as with other higher risk financial transactions or activities, full transparency around the residence schemes to ensure the integrity of funds entering the Union financial system. Member States should also ensure that authorities running investor residence schemes have an obligation to check the origin of funds in investors’ schemes.
  •     Impact on EU law on legal migration: Residence permits obtained by investment but with limited or no required physical presence of the  investor in the Member State in question could have an impact on the application of and rights associated with the EU Long-Term Residence Status. In the absence of an effective monitoring of continuity of residence, investors considered to be residing in a Member State on the basis of a national permit for five years could acquire EU Long Term Resident status and subsequent rights, in particular mobility rights, without fulfilling the actual condition of continuity of residence for five years. This would not be compliant with the Long-Term Residence Directive.
  •     Fast-track to citizenship: Sometimes, a residence permit obtained by investment and without requiring any physical presence may provide fast-track access or a link to permanent residence and then citizenship. In Member States that have both investor citizenship and residence schemes, the investment required for the residence scheme may be taken into consideration to qualify for the investor citizenship scheme.
  •     Tax evasion: There is a risk that the use of investor residence schemes may facilitate abuse as the documentation issued under some of these schemes can make it difficult for financial institutions to correctly identify the legitimate place of tax residence. This is whyMember States should make use of the available tools in the EU framework for administrative cooperation in the context of tax avoidance, in particular for exchange of information.

What has the Commission proposed as next steps regarding investor residence schemes?

The Commission will monitor compliance by Member States with EU law, in particular, with existing EU legal migration and family reunification rules, as well as existing rules regarding the use and implementation of the EU’s migration, border and security information systems.

What are the risks of investor citizenship schemes run by third countries that have a visa-free regime with the EU? How can they be mitigated?

Acquiring the citizenship of a third country, which has visa-free access to the EU for short stays, can permit nationals who require a visa to enter the EU to circumvent the regular Schengen visa procedure and the in-depth assessment of individual migratory and security risks it entails.

However, since April 2017 such risks are mitigated as all travellers, including those that do not require an EU visa, are checked at the EU’s external borders as to whether they fulfil the entry conditions, including by carrying out checks in the Schengen Information System and Member States’ national databases. If there are indications that a traveller could pose a risk to internal security or public policy of any of the Member States, entry could be refused. New information systems such as the European Travel Information and Authorisation System (ETIAS), and the Entry/Exit System (EES) will further contribute to enhancing effective checks of non-EU travellers.

In addition, in March 2017, a revised and strengthened visa suspension mechanism entered into force. It provides for new grounds for the temporary suspension of visa liberalisation, including where the third country in question by its actions – or inaction – is endangering the public policy or internal security of the EU Member States. It applies horizontally to all third countries whose citizens enjoy visa-free access to the Union. The Commission will monitor the impact of investor citizenship schemes implemented by visa-free countries as part of this mechanism.

What will the Commission do to mitigate the risks of investor residence and investor citizenship schemes operated by candidate countries and potential candidates?

In view of the risks inherent in investor citizenship schemes, the Commission will monitor citizenship investor schemes as part of the EU accession process. The countries concerned will be expected to have robust monitoring systems in place, including systems to counter possible security risks such as money laundering, terrorist financing, corruption and infiltration of organised crime linked to any such schemes.

What will the Commission do to mitigate the risks of investor residence and investor citizenship schemes?

The Commission will monitor wider issues of compliance with EU law raised by investor citizenship and residence schemes and it will take necessary action as appropriate. For this reason, Member States need to ensure, in particular, that:

  •          All obligatory border and security checks are systematically carried out;
  •          The requirements of the Long-Term Residence Permit Directive and the Family Reunification Directive are properly complied with;
  •          Funds paid by investor citizenship and residence applicants are assessed according to the EU anti-money laundering rules;
  •          In the context of tax avoidance risks, there are tools available in the EU framework for administrative cooperation, in particular for exchange of information.

The Commission will monitor steps taken by Member States to address issues of transparency and governance in managing these schemes. It will establish a group of experts from Member States to improve the transparency, governance and the security of the schemes. That group will be tasked, in particular, with:

  •      Setting up a system of exchange of information and consultation on the numbers of applications received, countries of origin and on the number of citizenships and residence permits granted/rejected by Member States to individuals based on investments;
  •      Developing a common set of security checks for investor citizenship schemes, including specific risk management processes, by the end of 2019.

Finally, concerning third countries setting up similar schemes, which may have security implications for the EU, the Commission will monitor investor citizenship schemes in candidate countries and potential candidates as part of the EU accession process. It will also monitor the impact of such schemes by EU visa-free countries as part of the visa-suspension mechanism.

What are the risks of tax evasion linked to these schemes?

While the underlying study did not look into tax aspects related to investor citizenship and residence schemes, it seems that very few of the schemes include provisions with the explicit purpose of avoiding or evading tax. That said, a risk of potential aggressive tax planning and evasion can be created when individuals partaking in the schemes are abruptly granted new or additional citizenships which may help to obscure the actual tax residence of the individual, leading to the tax rules in their original country to be circumvented. Schemes in countries which do not tax the income, or tax it at a very low rate, carry a greater risk of account holders hiding evidence of the real state of residence and thereby evading tax. In particular, some EU citizens may deliberately evade taxation in their EU State of residence by acquiring citizenship and declaring themselves tax resident in countries where enforcement of certain requirements is less strict than in others. EU financial institutions may  be less familiar with schemes in place outside the EU in order to evaluate their relevance. Documentation issued under some of these schemes may also make it very difficult for financial institutions to identify correctly the legitimate places of tax residence.

What can be done to limit these tax risks?

EU countries that offer investor citizenship and residence schemes are already subject to strict EU transparency rules that came into force in 2014 and which ensure that all Member States exchange information with each other on the financial accounts held by EU citizens from other countries. These transparency rules have in recent years been significantly extended to include a wealth of other information. Most recently, the rules have been supplemented with new reporting provisions for tax intermediaries (factsheet) who offer advice that could lead to tax evasion or fraud. At the same time, EU level networks of fraud investigators have also been strengthened to enable professionals from all Member States to exchange more information and best practices.

However, there are a number of actions could be taken outside of the EU’s tax transparency framework to minimise the risk of tax evasion when it comes to citizen investorship schemes such as considering the issues they raise for tax purposes in the work being carried out by Member States in the Council to reform the Code of Conduct for business taxation and whether the risks posed merit the inclusion of these issues in the criteria on which the EU’s list of non-cooperative tax jurisdictions is based.

Source: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-19-527_en.htm

Filed under Citizenship, citizenship-by-investment Tagged with

Citizenship schemes should be ‘phased out as soon as possible’

2018/11/16 Leave a comment

Hard not to agree with this recommendation of  the European Parliament:

Schemes which offer citizenship or residency by investment should be phased out as soon as possible, a European Parliament special committee has said.

In a draft report released on Tuesday, the Special Committee on Financial Crimes and Tax Evasion expressed concerns about Malta’s Individual Investor Programme, saying it could “potentially pose” high risks.

Their concerns came following an analysis by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which found Malta could potentially offer a back-door to money-launderers and tax evaders.

Read: Malta at ‘high’ risk of being used for money laundering

Following continued revelations over the past year, including the Panama Papers and Paradise Papers, the European Parliament decided to set up a special committee on financial crimes, tax evasion and tax avoidance.

After many months of expert hearings, studies and fact-finding missions, the committee presented its findings on Wednesday.

The report, put forward by Czech MEP Luděk Niedermayer and Danish MEP Jeppe Kofod, calls for an urgent reform of outdated and international tax rules.

“Anti-money laundering provisions in Europe are a loose patchwork blanket of EU and national rules. The blanket clearly doesn’t cover all it needs to, and the patches don’t quite line up, leaving loopholes,” Mr Kofod said.

In a statement, the EPP also came out strongly against schemes offering citizenship or residences for investment.

These schemes were being abused and posed a security threat to the rest of the EU, MEP Dariusz Rosati, EPP group spokesman in the committee said.

In his reaction, PN MEP Francis Zammit Dimech said concerns related to proper lack of due diligence meant countries were facing “totally unnecessary security risks”.

Nationalist MEP Francis Zammit Dimech

“This is why we shall keep on insisting on the full and clear disclosure of the names of all persons acquiring citizenship and not try to hide those names from public attention and scrutiny,” he said.

The draft report will be discussed on November 27.

Source: Citizenship schemes should be ‘phased out as soon as possible’
And in other citizenship-by-investment news, this editorial in the Jordan Times regarding recent Jordanian proposals:
The government decided on Sunday to have another look at the regulations governing granting of the Jordanian nationality to foreigners by raising the financial stakes for their eligibility.

Depositing $1.5 million with the Central Bank of Jordan, purchasing no less than $1.5 million worth of Jordanian treasury bonds or even buying stakes in Jordanian companies worth $1.5 million are all well and good revisions, but making the price of citizenship higher does not go far enough. The Jordanian nationality has no price and cannot be measured in US dollars or Jordanian dinars. There must be something much more important and valuable for obtaining the Jordanian nationality.

One would have thought, therefore, that the government would revisit other factors for citizenship qualification that go beyond money. What about having potential citizen take a test, like all countries do when they grant citizenship to foreigners, with a view to determining the extent of their knowledge of the history of the country and its goals and aspirations.

Potential citizens must be also sensitive to the culture of the country, and its regional and international challenges. Above all, there is a need to gauge the extent of their solemn loyalty to the country.

None of these non-material testing grounds appear to figure highly in the process leading to granting citizenship to foreign applicants. And come to think of it, why not invite Parliament to have a look also at the citizenship process for foreign applicants. The people’s representatives need to have voice in this important policy.

Being a Jordanian is a very serious matter and taking it should not be for serving applicants’ immediate needs. Otherwise, the Jordanian nationality would become a citizenship of convenience.

Jordanians at large would want to make sure that no one is contemplating taking Jordan for a ride, to serve their own immediate and perhaps temporary goals. This whole process of granting citizenship to investors requires another look, a look that is deeper and multidimensional.

Source: Citizenship is not a commodity

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with , , ,

Brisk business in EU golden visas and citizenship scams

2018/11/07 Leave a comment

More on these scams:

As demand for residency or citizenship in EU member states has grown, a market has emerged in which corrupt national officials falsify documents for a fee. And that is not all: Many governments of EU member states openly and officially benefit from selling “golden visas,” raking in billions of euros.

Last week in Bulgaria, about two dozen officials were temporarily detained because they had for many years illegally sold fake certificates of ancestry to people from Macedonia, Moldova and Ukraine — and reportedly made thousands of euros in doing so. People holding such certificates, authenticated by the State Agency for Bulgarians Abroad, can apply for citizenship. Petar Haralampiev, the head of SABA and a notorious nationalist politician suspected of being the ringleader, was among the officials arrested; he has been removed from his post.

In 2012, DW’s Bulgaria desk was one of the first media outlets to report on SABA’s sale of fake ancestry documents to foreigners. Beginning in 2013 Katja Mateva, a lawyer and the former head of the citizenship department in Bulgaria’s Justice Ministry, repeatedly offered senior government officials information on the sales. In 2014, Petko Petkov, the deputy justice minister at the time, sent a memorandum on the matter to interim Prime Minister Georgi Bliznashki. Nothing happened.

Mateva told DW that she was sidelined for years at the Justice Ministry, and ultimately dismissed in 2017. Petkov was branded a traitor by his colleagues. Both Mateva and Petkov told DW that senior politicians have not been keen to stop the deals.

Ancestry certificates offer citizenship in Romania and Hungary, too. In Romania, the deal mainly affects people from Moldova, where two-thirds of the population are of Romanian descent. Ukraine is also home to people of Romanian and Hungarian descent. Regional media report that fake certificates have been sold in Romania and Hungary for years. Thousands of Russians and Ukrainians are believed to have secured Romanian or Hungarian citizenship in this manner.

‘Security risks’

There’s also a brisk trade in golden visas in the European Union. Non-EU citizens can buy citizenship or a permanent residence in many countries by coming in as investors. EU member states such as Bulgaria, Greece, Great Britain, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Austria, Portugal, Spain, Hungary and Cyprus have offered or still offer such programs.

Transparency International and Global Witness report that at least 6,000 people have bought citizenship and more than 100,000 have received residency in this manner over the past decade. The total income, the NGOs report, amounted to at least €25 billion ($28.5billion). Golden visa programs encourage money laundering and offer businesspeople a safe haven, the NGOs report. They urge the European Union to put a stop to this practice.

Hungary’s golden visa program ran until 2017. Though there is almost no official information, Hungarian investigative journalists have repeatedly — most recently three weeks ago — published findings on the program’s beneficiaries. According to the reporters, Russian politicians, relatives of high-ranking Russian secret service officials and confidants of Syrian dictator Bashar Assad have received Hungarian citizenship or residency. Ghaith Pharaon, a Saudi businessman who died in 2017 and was wanted by the US for bank fraud and money laundering, also allegedly received a Hungarian residence permit and applied for citizenship.

“This business practice poses security risks, not only for Hungary but the entire European Union,” Andras Petho, an editor with Hungary’s Direkt36 center for investigative journalism, told DW.

He pointed out an “interesting contradiction.”

The Hungarian government minces no words when speaking out against immigration. “At the same time, lots of people from outside the EU are being brought into the country by way of the golden visa program,” Petho said, “people hardly anyone has checked.”

Source: Brisk business in EU golden visas and citizenship scams

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with ,

The EU Is Demanding A Critical Change To Malta’s Sale Of Citizenship Scheme

2018/06/16 Leave a comment

Overdue (and likely not enough):

The European Commission demanded Malta revamp its controversial sale-of-citizenship scheme to ensure new Maltese citizens live on the island for at least a year.

“Becoming a Maltese citizen means becoming an EU citizen and gaining the benefits of free movement,” EU Justice Commissioner Vĕra Jourová said during a visit to Malta this afternoon. “The European Commission must ensure that Malta only gives citizenship to people with a real link to the country and who reside in it for at least a year.”

Jourová’s warning will come as a blow to the Maltese government, which often rebuts criticism at the Individual Investor Programme (IIP) by insisting that the European Commission has no problem with it.

While acknowledging that member states have sovereignty over citizenship schemes, Jourová pledged to continue raising concerns about potential threats posed by the IIP.

“We must not enable suspicious people to acquire European citizenship through an easy way and use it to launder money or to pose some sort of security threats to the continent,” she said. “We have a legitimate right to require some basic parameters for citizenship scheme.”

She said the European Commission is currently analysing all EU citizenship schemes, including Malta’s IIP, ahead of a detailed report that will be published by the end of the year.

“If it turns out that this assessment isn’t favourable to the Maltese IIP, then I believe we will be able to work hand in hand with the Maltese authorities to improve the system.”

Jourová’s assessment came after she met key players in the industry today, including the IIP’s chief executive officer Jonathan Cardona.

The IIP requires applicants to pay €650,000 to the government as well as to invest in government bonds and to either buy a property worth at least €350,000 or to rent a property out for at least €16,000 over five years. However, it doesn’t require applicants to actually live on the island – a fact that was probed by the BBC alongside Daphne Caruana Galizia a few months before her assassination.

Source: The EU Is Demanding A Critical Change To Malta’s Sale Of Citizenship Scheme

Filed under Citizenship, citizenship-by-investment Tagged with ,

EU Agency Rolls Out Survey of European Jewish Reactions to Antisemitism in 13 Countries

2018/05/23 Leave a comment

Will be interesting to see the results. Would be also nice to have an equivalent survey with respect to Muslim citizens and residents and their experiences with racism and discrimination (FRA may have already done this):

Jewish citizens and residents of 13 European Union member states are being urged to fill out on an online survey detailing their personal experiences with antisemitism, as part of a new EU initiative to combat hatred and prejudice toward Jews.

The survey, launched earlier this month, has been organized by the EU’s Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) in association with two UK-based institutions — the Institute for Jewish Policy Research (JPR), a think tank located in London, and the polling organization Ipsos.

A statement from the FRA said that the goal of the survey was to compile “comparable data on the experiences, perceptions and views of discrimination and hate crime victimization of persons who self-identify as Jewish on the basis of their religion, ethnicity or any other reason.”

The survey is being conducted in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Sweden and the UK. As well as completing the survey in their national languages, respondents also have the option to submit their answers in Hebrew — a reflection, perhaps, of the growing presence of Israeli émigré communities in cities like Berlin and Paris.

Judith Russell — development director of the JPR — told the French Jewish newspaper Actualité Juive that her institute had carried out a similar survey in 9 European countries in 2012, with positive results.

“The results of the 2012 study prompted the European Commission to appoint a coordinator in the fight against antisemitism, and to agree on the definition of the word ‘antisemitism’ on a European level,” Russell remarked.  “This new survey can still drive new solutions at European level.”

The survey asks respondents for their opinions about general trends in antisemitism — for example, whether they feel that there has been an increase in antisemitic statements by elected politicians — as well personal experiences of antisemitism at work or at school, or in public places. Initial results are scheduled for release in November.

Source: EU Agency Rolls Out Survey of European Jewish Reactions to Antisemitism in 13 Countries

Filed under Antisemitism, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

UK immigration latest: EU net migration falls over past year as Brexit uncertainty continues | The Independent

2018/02/23 Leave a comment

Not surprising:

EU net migration is falling as more European citizens leave the UK and fewer arrive in the wake of the vote for Brexit, new statistics show.

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) said overall net migration in the year to September was 244,000 – a similar level to early 2014 and down on record levels in the next two years.

The number of European citizens arriving has plummeted since the EU referendum, while the number of people from outside the bloc has increased.

“EU net migration has fallen as fewer EU citizens are arriving, especially those coming to look for work in the UK, and the number leaving has risen – it has now returned to the level seen in 2012,” said Nicola White, head of international migration statistics at the ONS.

“The figures also show that non-EU net migration is now larger than EU net migration, mainly due to the large decrease in EU net migration over the last year. However, migration of both non-EU and EU citizens are still adding to the UK population.

“Brexit could well be a factor in people’s decision to move to or from the UK, but people’s decision to migrate is complicated and can be influenced by lots of different reasons.”

The number of EU citizens coming to the UK plummeted by 47,000 in the year and the number leaving – 130,000 – is the highest recorded level since the 2008 financial crisis.

Almost a quarter of a million people arrived in the UK to work in the period 2017, with the number of EU citizens falling by 58,000.

Most of the Europeans arriving had a definite job lined up, while a smaller proportion were looking for work.

The biggest nationality starting work in the year to September, according to National Insurance number registration data, was Romanian, followed by Polish, Italian, Bulgarian, Spanish and Indian – who accounted for over half of all skilled work visas granted.

The ONS said that the overall employment rate for EU nationals was 81.2 per cent, followed by Brits at 75.6 per cent and non-EU nationals on 63.2 per cent.

George Koureas, a partner at immigration law firm Fragomen, said: “The UK has become a significantly less attractive place for European citizens to work since Brexit, so it’s no surprise that more EU workers are leaving the country.

“Although the Government may see this as good news, it presents a significant threat to UK businesses, already struggling to hire the skilled workers they need to thrive.”

He said there could be a further impact from the Government’s plan to double the Immigration Health Surcharge, which is paid by migrants to use the NHS, and caps on visas for skilled workers.

via UK immigration latest: EU net migration falls over past year as Brexit uncertainty continues | The Independent

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , ,

EU chiefs ‘IGNORE’ ethnic minority staff ‘despite promoting diversity’ | Express.co.uk

2017/12/12 Leave a comment

The numbers are telling:

Statistics published by the Politico website show minorities make up just one per cent of EU institutions.

Part of the reason for the EU’s deliberate colour blindness stems from countries like France where there is huge opposition to compiling statistics on race.

But critics say that has led the bloc to become a “bubble” for rich white people and no longer reflects the continent it purports to represent.

Is the EU too white?

British Conservative MEP Syed Kamall said there was a clear divide between those high up in Brussels and the staff performing low-level jobs.He told the site: “If you want to see diversity in the European institutions, look at the faces of the cleaners leaving the building early in the morning and contrast that with the white MEPs and officials entering.”

One MEP’s assistant, Rachael Moore, even accused politicians at the European Parliament of ignoring her as one of the few “black faces” andclaimed she was subjected to security checks for no good reason.

She said: “It’s like I am not even there — they just look straight at my boss.

“They don’t look or reply to me when I ask a question. I get looks like ‘you’re not supposed to be here’.”

She went on: “I don’t sound like anything in particular on the surface.

“There is shock, a blank stare when they see me for the first time. It plays on my daily life.”

There is a lack of diversity at EU institutions

British Conservative MEP Syed Kamall said there was a clear divide between those high up in Brussels and the staff performing low-level jobs.

And Sarah Chander from the European Network Against Racism (ENAR) told Politico there was an “audacity” in Brussels where “every single one” of those promoting multiculturalism were white.

She said: “Many working in the Brussels bubble feel that working on progressive issues gives them a sense of immunity for the overwhelming whiteness of their institutions and organisations.”

It is not the first time concerns have been raised about a lack of representation in the EU corridors of power.

The ENAR penned a letter to Jean Claude-Junker earlier this year calling for changes to its diversity strategy.

It came after the Commission published a new policy on boosting the number of women, people with disabilities and LGBT staff working at its buildings, but ignored their race.

The letter said: “The European Commission has been widely criticised for under-representation of racial, ethnic and religious minorities within its workforce.

“Many commentators have argued that the European Commission must better reflect the diversity of the European society.

“Particularly at senior levels, the issue of under-representation is acute.

“This points to a trend of structural discrimination within the European Commission and jeopardises the equal inclusion of racial, ethnic and religious minority staff.”

But last year Alexander Winterstein, deputy chief spokesman for the Commission, defended its policies.

He claimed: “If you walk through our corridors you will see people from all walks of life, from all over Europe.”

via EU chiefs ‘IGNORE’ ethnic minority staff ‘despite promoting diversity’ | World | News | Express.co.uk

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

EUROPP – The question of citizenship in the Brexit divorce: UK and EU citizens’ rights compared

2017/12/12 Leave a comment

Some interesting polling data. No surprise that “on average British citizens are more supportive of their rights abroad compared to EU-27 citizens’ rights in the UK:”

One of the key priorities for the EU during the Brexit negotiations is safeguarding citizens’ rights. This refers to 3.5 million EU citizens living in the UK and 1.2 million UK nationals living in EU countries. The EU supports equal treatment in the UK of EU27 citizens as compared to UK nationals, and in the EU27 of UK nationals as compared to EU27 citizens, in accordance with Union law. In her Florence speech on 22 September, the UK Prime Minster, Theresa May, offered to incorporate legal protections for EU citizens living in the UK into UK law as part of the exit treaty.

However, since the UK triggered Article 50 on 29 March, there has been little substantive progress in the Brexit negotiations with the question of citizens’ rights being one of the primary sticking points. A European Parliament resolution criticised the lack of sufficient progress on this issue, with the Parliament’s Brexit chief, Guy Verhofstadt, arguing that ‘citizens’ rights are not being well-managed’ suggesting the possibility of a potential European Parliament veto of the Brexit deal.

Against this background of uncertainty, it is important to understand how citizens’ rights feature in the hearts and minds of the British public. To do so, we designed a survey, conducted by YouGov for the University of York on 29 June just a few days after official negotiations for departure began between the UK and the EU on 19 June. The key questions we sought to address were:

  • What is the opinion of British citizens on the rights of EU citizens in the UK as part of the Brexit divorce?
  • How do attitudes towards the rights of UK citizens abroad compare to attitudes towards the rights of EU citizens in the UK?

Our sample consisted of 1,698 individuals and was representative of the general British population in terms of age, gender, education, social grade, region, political attention and EU referendum vote. We broke down the question of citizens’ rights into four subsequent components that relate to freedom of movement in the EU, i.e. the right to freely work, reside and do business in another EU member state, as well as receive welfare.

UK citizens’ attitudes towards EU-27 citizens’ rights in the UK

Overall, British public opinion is dispersed on EU-27 citizens’ rights in the UK, as shown in Figure 1. There is much more support for doing business in the UK as opposed to working and living in the UK. The least support is observed on the question of access to welfare where we may observe comparatively much more disagreement and potentially a level of polarisation among the electorate.

On a scale from 0 to 10, where 0 denotes full disagreement and 10 full agreement, approximately a quarter of the respondents (24.16%) fully disagree that EU citizens should be allowed to claim welfare benefits in the UK. If we were to add those who have responded below 5, i.e. the middle point of the scale, then this proportion reaches 50% of the respondents. This shows that opposition to EU citizens’ accessing welfare benefits in the UK is much higher to opposition to EU citizens’ right to live, work and do business in the UK, which is at 20.84%, 19.57% and 9.25% respectively. Put differently, the majority of British citizens tend to be in favour of EU citizens living, working and doing business in the UK, but they are not as happy for them to claim welfare benefits in their country.

UK citizens’ attitudes toward UK citizens’ rights in the EU-27

How do these findings compare to how British citizens view their own rights abroad? Here the picture is slightly different. Figure 2 shows that on average British citizens are more supportive of their rights abroad compared to EU-27 citizens’ rights in the UK. Overall, fewer people disagree that UK citizens should have the right to live, work, do business and claim welfare benefits in other EU countries (responses below point 5 on the scale). These percentages range from 14.74% disagreeing that UK citizens should have the right to live in an EU country, 14.04% being hostile to UK citizens having the right to work in the EU, only 7.74% disagreeing that UK citizens should be able to do business in other EU countries, and 44.9% arguing that UK citizens should not receive welfare abroad. The latter number on UK citizens’ welfare rights in other EU countries is about 5 percentage points lower than those who oppose EU citizens’ welfare access in the UK. That being said, however, British citizens are similarly polarised on the question of welfare access even if this concerns their own nationals abroad.

Our findings suggest that although the question of EU immigration is very important among the public, and – as we know – contributed to how people voted in the Brexit referendum in 2016, it is much more nuanced and potentially contradictory than we had previously thought.

First, often – at least in the British case – some nationals may have ‘double standards’ not viewing non-nationals having equal rights to themselves. This might undermine the UK government’s popularity following a Brexit divorce deal that guarantees equal rights for both UK nationals in EU member states and EU-27 citizens in the UK.

Second, the British public is much more agreeable to EU citizens’ living, working and doing business in the UK, but they are considerably less comfortable with them sharing welfare. This suggests that it is the social aspect of EU citizenship that is the key issue featuring in the hearts and minds of the majority of the British public. This could be because the anti-EU campaigns, parties and individuals heavily politicised the welfare aspect of EU integration during the Brexit referendum, by for example associating EU membership costs with a deficit in the NHS.

via EUROPP – The question of citizenship in the Brexit divorce: UK and EU citizens’ rights compared

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with , , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →