For “global citizens” read the ultra-rich or plutocrats:
CS Global Partners, the world’s leading government advisory and marketing firm, has released its much-anticipated World Citizenship Report (WCR). The WCR showcases the World Citizenship Index (WCI), a distinctive tool that compares world citizenships from the perspective of a global citizen. The index’s methodology evaluates 187 jurisdictions across five key motivators defining citizenship for the global citizen.
The top scoring countries in the World Citizenship Report (WCR)
Reliance was placed on official statistics to evaluate a score for the defined motivators of Safety and Security, Quality of Life, Economic Opportunity, Global Mobility and Financial Freedom. Backed by research from leading data banks, interviews and a survey undertaken by over 500 wealthy investors, the WCR looks beyond passport strength and emphasises pivotal factors that play a role in choosing the right second citizenship.
Micha Emmett, the CEO of CS Global Partners, said that the WCR stands apart from other reports in the industry because it “examines which countries offer the most benefits for global citizens, particularly in a post-COVID world where those that have the means are consistently searching for greater opportunities and better protection.”
“We wanted to capture what truly concerns and affects a global citizen,” she said. “When there are options to gain a second or third citizenship, the first question HNWIs mind is ‘where is the next place to be associated with?'”
“High-net-worth individuals must consider a myriad of factors when deciding something as monumental as where to obtain second citizenship and build a second home. While passport strength is, of course, an important component, it is also one that is subject to the greatest change as evidenced by pandemic related travel restrictions,” she added.
Results show Switzerland scoring the highest with 88.1, followed by Denmark (88.0) in second place and Finland, Norway and Sweden tied for third (86.9). Notably, global superpowers such as the United States did not rank in the top ten, symbolising a significant shift in what these economic giants can tangibly offer the global elite. Comparatively, Asiaemerged as a hub for economic prosperity due to its business advantages, particularly Japan, which ranked sixth and Singapore, which came in seventh.
Aside from analysing the performance of countries, the WCR looks at ways HNWIs protect and grow their wealth. This includes implementing an effective financial plan that considers inheritance and wealth taxes and investing in emerging valuable assets like cryptocurrency.
The report finds that citizenship by investment (CBI) is also an effective tool for the world’s wealthiest, and it has become a trend exacerbated during the pandemic. CBI offers an alternative and time-effective solution for those who do not have a marriage, descent, or naturalisation attachment to other countries. It ultimately enables applicants to obtain a second citizenship, often within three to four months, without any former ties to the nation, as long as they can pass a multi-tiered vetting procedure.
According to the report, entrepreneurs and business people actively sought investments that stood the test of time during the thick of lockdowns. While predicting the future isn’t possible, keeping abreast of global trends has enabled many HNWIs and global citizens to identify opportunities in places they may not have considered before. The WCR aims to bring these trends to light and make the second citizenship process simpler by compiling relevant data that most concerns affluent individuals and their families.
Quebec’s cash-for-visa program, considered by critics as a factor in Vancouver’s housing affordability crisis, is one of the most generous investor-luring programs in the world, according to a U.S.-based think-tank.
The Migration Policy Institute, which analyzes global migration policies, completed a 2014 study that concluded investor programs are enticing in theory, but have results that are “modest at best.”
The study was published the same year that the Canadian government, then the Conservatives, shut down the national cash-for-visa program.
The federal program had offered immediate permanent resident status – and therefore immediate entitlement to Canada’s social program network and protection under the Charter of Rights – in return for an $800,000 investment in a government bond over a five-year period.
But Quebec has continued with its program, using identical financial criteria, and in 2015 accepted in a record number of applicants.
The program’s continuation has caused tension because while Quebec gets the lion’s share of the financial benefits, more than 80 per cent of new arrivals under the Quebec program settle immediately in Toronto or Vancouver – where critics say they play a role in fuelling the red-hot housing markets.
The institute’s founder, Demetrios Papademetriou, said it’s no surprise investors line up to use the Quebec program when there are similar schemes in the U.S., the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and many European countries.
“It’s is among the most generous, particularly when you compare how desirable it is to make it to Canada,” Papademetriou said Tuesday in an interview from Washington, D.C.
Here is how the programs compare:
• Quebec: Requires a $800,000 bond investment for five years, with the interest (currently about $50,000) going into provincial government coffers. The investor, who must prove he or she has assets worth at least $1.6 million, gets immediate permanent resident status.
• United States: This program requires investors to put US$500,000 in a potentially risky corporate endeavour, meaning applicants can and sometimes do lose their investment. In return, the investor gets a temporary resident card and after two years can seek permanent residence status.
• United Kingdom: Requires applicants to invest two million pounds ($3.4 million Cdn.) in a government bond or stocks in return for a three-year resident visa that can be extended for another two years, followed by the possibility of obtaining permanent resistant status. One of the UK’s restrictions, however, prevents investors from putting their money into real estate.
• Australia: Requires a $1.5-million investment in a company, but the investor must also be under 45 years of age, have assets of $2.25 million, have a “vocational level of English-language” proficiency, and proof of business experience. Australia has other programs for older investors, though these have greater restrictions. For instance, those over age 55 can’t have dependents.
• New Zealand: Limits applicants to age 65 or younger, requires they can speak English and make a $1.5-million investment in a five-year government bond. They must also prove they intend to settle there, and have the ability to do so.
• France: Allows investors to live there for up to 10 years by investing at least 10 million euros ($14.4 million) in “industrial or commercial assets” in France. Other European countries are less stringent.
• Germany: Requires a one million euro investment that will create at least 10 jobs, but applicants must also prove they have health insurance and enough money to support themselves. Only after holding a five-year residency permit, and showing they can speak German, can they apply for permanent residency status.
Papademetriou said many countries rushed into the programs starting in the 1980s but have since toughened restrictions or, in the Canadian government’s case, cancelled the program after realizing the benefits were marginal.
One of the issues touching Vancouver, he said, is not unusual among countries that have launched investor programs and then faced pressures due to an influx of money, especially from Asia.
“When you have hyperinflation in housing, and you have the local population not getting on first step ladder to owning a home, that creates additional resentment.”
Pressure to end investor programs is often countered by financial interests that benefit, he said.
Lawyers and consultants, such as those acting as brokers in the Quebec program, “make a lot of money out of these things.”
Good piece by Sean Fine in the Globe comparing revocation practices in other countries:
What other democracies allow citizenship to be revoked?
Twenty-two countries in Europe allow denaturalization for terrorism or other behaviour contrary to the national interest, according to a 2014 paper by University of Ottawa law professor Craig Forcese. These include Britain, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Spain, Switzerland and the Netherlands. Australia introduced a new law in June to revoke the citizenship of dual nationals who engage in terrorism. Britain has broadened its revocation powers; the government may now make an individual stateless.
Why does the United States, with its well-known ‘war on terror,’ not revoke terrorists’ citizenship?
The U.S. Supreme Court has expressed abhorrence: In a 1958 case, chief justice Earl Warren called it “a form of punishment more primitive than torture, for it destroys for the individual the political existence that was centuries in the development.” In a 1949 case, the court deplored the removal “of a right no less precious than life or liberty.”
What does the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms say about citizenship?
Section 6 says, “Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.” But Section 1 says rights and freedoms are subject to limits that government can justify as reasonable in a free and democratic society. However, Section 6 is not subject to the Charter’s “notwithstanding” clause (Section 33); government cannot opt out of a court ruling on citizenship rights.
Multicultural Meanderings 