Citizenship for sale: how tycoons can go shopping for a new passport | The Guardian

Best overview and analysis I have seen to date:

It’s the must-have accessory for every self-respecting 21st-century oligarch, and a good many mere multimillionaires: a second – and sometimes a third or even a fourth – passport.

Israel, which helped Russian billionaire Roman Abramovich out of a spot of bother this week by granting him citizenship after delays in renewing his expired UK visa, offers free nationality to any Jewish person wishing to move there.

But there are as many as two dozen other countries, including several in the EU, where someone with the financial resources of the Chelsea football club owner could acquire a new nationality for a price: the global market in citizenship-by-investment programmes – or CIPs as they are commonly known – is booming.

The ‘golden visa’ deal: ‘We have in effect been selling off British citizenship to the rich’
Read more
The schemes’ specifics – and costs, ranging from as little as $100,000 (£74,900) to as much as €2.5m (£2.19m) – may vary, but not the principle: in essence, wealthy people invest money in property or businesses, buy government bonds or simply donate cash directly, in exchange for citizenship and a passport.

Some do not offer citizenship for sale outright, but run schemes usually known as “golden visas” that reward investors with residence permits that can eventually lead – typically after a period of five years – to citizenship.

The programmes are not new, but are growing exponentially, driven by wealthy private investors from emerging market economies including China, Russia, India, Vietnam, Mexico and Brazil, as well as the Middle East and more recently Turkey.

The first launched in 1984, a year after young, cash-strapped St Kitts and Nevis won independence from the UK. Slow to take off, it accelerated fast after 2009 when passport-holders from the Caribbean island nation were granted visa-free travel to the 26-nation Schengen zone.

For poorer countries, such schemes can be a boon, lifting them out of debt and even becoming their biggest export: the International Monetary Fund reckons St Kitts and Nevis earned 14% of its GDP from its CIP in 2014, and other estimates put the figure as high as 30% of state revenue.

Wealthier countries such as Canada, the UK and New Zealand have also seen the potential of CIPs (the US EB-5 programme is worth about $4bn a year to the economy) but sell their schemes more around the attractions of a stable economy and safe investment environment than on freedom of movement.

Experts from the many companies, such as Henley and Partners, CS Global and Apex, now specialising in CIPs and advertising their services online and in inflight magazines, say that unlike Abramovich, relatively few of their clients buy citizenship in order to move immediately to the country concerned.

For most, the acquisition represents an insurance policy: with nationalism, protectionism, isolationism and fears of financial instability on the rise around the world, the state of the industry serves as an effective barometer of global political and economic uncertainty.

But CIPs are not without their critics. Malta, for example, has come under sustained fire from Brussels and other EU capitals for its programme, run by Henley and Partners, which according to the IMF saw more than 800 wealthy individuals gain citizenship in the three years following its launch in 2014.

Critics said the scheme was undermining the concept of EU citizenship, posing potential major security risks, and providing a possible route for wealthy individuals – for example from Russia – with opaque income streams to dodge sanctions in their own countries.

Several other CIPs have come under investigation for fraud, while equality campaigners increasingly argue the moral case that it is simply wrong to grant automatic citizenship to ultra-high net worth individuals when the less privileged must wait their turn – and, in many cases, be rejected.

The Caribbean

The best-known – and cheapest – CIP schemes are in the Caribbean, where the warm climate, low investment requirements and undemanding residency obligations have long proved popular. Five countries currently offer CIPs, often giving visa-free travel to the EU, and have recently cut their prices to attract investors as they seek funds to help them rebuild after last year’s hurricanes. In St Kitts and Nevis a passport can now be had for a $150,000 donation to the hurricane relief fund, while Antigua, Barbuda and Granada have cut their fees to $100,000, the same level as St Lucia and Dominica.

Europe

Almost half of the EU’s member states offer some kind of investment residency or citizenship programme leading to a highly prized EU passport, which typically allows visa-free travel to between 150 and 170 countries. Malta’s citizenship-for-sale scheme requires a €675,000 donation to the national development fund and a €350,000 property purchase. In Cyprus the cost is a €2m investment in real estate, stocks, government bonds or Cypriot businesses (although the number of new passports is to be capped at 700 a year following criticism). In Bulgaria, €500,000 gets you residency, and about €1m over two years plus a year’s residency gets you fast-track citizenship. Investors can get residency rights leading longer term to citizenship – usually after five years, and subject to passing relevant language and other tests – for €65,000 in Latvia (equities), €250,000 in Greece (property), €350,000 or €500,000 (property or a small business investment fund) or €500,000 in Spain (property, and you have to wait 10 years to apply for citizenship).

Rest of the world

Thailand offers several “elite residency” packages costing $3,000-$4,000 a year for up to 20 years residency, some including health checkups, spa treatments and VIP handling from government agencies. The EB-5 US visa, particularly popular with Chinese investors, costs between €500,000 and $1m depending on the type of investment and gives green card residency that can eventually lead to a passport. Canada closed its CA$800,000 (£460,000) federal investment immigration programme in 2014 but now has a similar residency scheme, costing just over CA$1m, for “innovative start-ups”, as well as regional schemes in, for example, Quebec. Australia requires an investment of AU$1.5m (£850,000) and a net worth of AU$2.5m for residency that could, eventually, lead to citizenship, and New Zealand – popular with Silicon Valley types – an investment of up to NZ$10m (£5.2m).

via Citizenship for sale: how tycoons can go shopping for a new passport | World news | The Guardian

We’re not a post-racial society. We’re the innocent until proven racist society | Danielle Henderson

Strong commentary by Danielle Henderson in The Guardian on the enduring presence of racism in the US (some of the examples apply more broadly), and the wilful or unconscious denial that occurs (with the caveat that correlation is not necessarily causation):

Racism is not just part of our shameful past as many would like to think: it’s a vicious factor in the gulf of inequality that still plagues us today.

People of color still suffer the effects of racism on a regular basis: statistics show that we incarcerate African-Americans and Latinos at disproportionate rates; white people then strongly support continuing criminal justice policies that disproportionately target Latinos and African-Americans when given information about the disproportionate rates of incarceration. Our schools still expel and suspend black students at “triple the rate of their white peers”. People of color are more likely to be arrested for drug related crimes, even though whites use and abuse drugs at similar rates, and, once arrested, get longer sentences than white people arrested for the same crimes. Unemployment is consistently twice as high among black Americans compared to white Americans, and black Americans have to search for work longer than white ones. African-Americans pay more for car insurance, for home loans and for access to credit, and they are racially profiled while shopping by store security personnel – including at Best Buy. Having tons of money is no panacea: even though they make up 65% of the NFL, black players receive 92% of the penalties for unsportsmanlike conduct, and a store clerk in Switzerland refused to show a $38,000 Tom Ford handbag to Oprah Winfrey, whose net worth is $2.9bn, because it was “too expensive”.

And yet, people still hold on to the belief that we live in a color-blind system in which nobody is a racist, despite such obvious examples of persistent racism. The “post-racial” society is an intellectual refuge for white Americans, who largely benefit from racism even when they’re unwilling or unable to admit it. We certainly shouldn’t keep denying that racism exists, but white America needs to wake up and recognize just how complicit it has become in a system constantly perpetuating false notions of equality.

Were not a post-racial society. Were the innocent until proven racist society | Danielle Henderson | Comment is free | theguardian.com.

The Guardian view on Gaza and the rise of antisemitism | Editorial | Comment is free | The Guardian

The Guardian’s take on increased antisemitism in relation to Israeli government actions:

It should not need saying, but it does: people can be as angry as they like at the Israeli government, but to attack a synagogue, threaten children at a Jewish school, or throw a brick through the window of a Jewish grocery store is vile and contemptible racism. It cannot be excused by reference to Israeli military behaviour. The two are and should be kept utterly distinct.

Some may counter that that is impossible, given the strong attachment of most Jews to Israel. But this is less complicated than it looks. Yes, Jews feel bound up with Israel, they believe in its right to survive and thrive. But that does not mean they should be held responsible for its policy, on which some may disagree and over which they have no control.

Nor should they be required to declare their distance from Israel as a condition for admission into polite society. We opposed such a question being put to all Muslims after 9/11 and, though the cases are not equivalent, the same logic applies here. This is a test for those who take a strong stance in support of the Palestinians, but in truth it is a test for all of us.

The Guardian view on Gaza and the rise of antisemitism | Editorial | Comment is free | The Guardian.

Advice for Policy Makers and Researchers

While this was written to assist government scientists and policy makers better understand each other these are both very good lists, compiled by British and Australia policy makers and researchers. They capture the dynamic well between the technical expert and the more general policy advisor roles and perspectives, and tap into themes of ideology, evidence and risk of Policy Arrogance or Innocent Bias: Resetting Citizenship and Multiculturalism.

Good reading both within the public service and with the political level, given some of the ongoing tensions regarding evidence and anecdote and how the different perspectives play out.

Top 20 things scientists need to know about policy-making

  1. Making policy is really difficult
  2. No policy will ever be perfect
  3. Policy makers can be expert too
  4. Policy makers are not a homogenous group
  5. Policy makers are people too
  6. Policy decisions are subject to extensive scrutiny
  7. Starting policies from scratch is very rarely an option
  8. There is more to policy than scientific evidence
  9. Public opinion matters
  10. Economics and law are top dogs in policy advice
  11. Policy makers do understand uncertainty
  12. Parliament and government are different
  13. Policy and politics are not the same thing
  14. The UK has a brilliant science advisory system
  15. Policy and science operate on different timescales
  16. There is no such thing as a policy cycle
  17. The art of making policy is a developing science
  18. ‘Science policy’ isn’t a thing
  19. Policy makers aren’t interested in science per se
  20. We need more research’ is the wrong answer

Top 20 things politicians need to know about science

  1. Differences and chance cause variation
  2. No measurement is exact
  3. Bias is rife
  4. Bigger is usually better for sample size
  5. Correlation does not imply causation
  6. Regression to the mean can mislead
  7. Extrapolating beyond the data is risky
  8. Beware the base-rate fallacy
  9. Controls are important
  10. Randomisation avoids bias
  11. Seek replication, not pseudoreplication
  12. Scientists are human
  13. Significance is significant
  14. Separate no effect from non-significance
  15. Effect size matters
  16. Data can be dredged or cherry picked
  17. Extreme measurements may mislead
  18. Study relevance limits generalisations
  19. Feelings influence risk perception
  20. Dependencies change the risks

 

Message to Richard Dawkins: ‘Islam is not a race’ is a cop out | Nesrine Malik

A reminder that prejudice is still prejudice, no matter how framed or cloaked.

Message to Richard Dawkins: ‘Islam is not a race’ is a cop out | Nesrine Malik | Comment is free | theguardian.com.