New immigration rules will be “simple and flexible”, ministers have promised, as the UK’s points-based post-Brexit system went live.

From Tuesday most foreign nationals, including from the European Union, who want to work in the UK from 1 January will have to apply online for a visa.

Those seeking a skilled worker visa will need a job offer, to be proficient in English and earn at least £25,600.

Free movement from and to the EU will come to an end on 31 December.

The UK left the EU on 31 January but has been largely following its rules during the subsequent 11-month transition period, as the two sides try to reach agreement over a trade deal.

As talks continue in London, the UK is stepping up its preparations for leaving the EU’s single market and customs union at the end of the year.

The government has announced it is setting up a new Border Operations Centre, which it says will ensure round-the-clock surveillance of goods and passengers coming in and out of British ports for the first time.

The basics

• Brexit happened but rules didn’t change at once: The UK left the European Union on 31 January 2020, but leaders needed time to negotiate a deal for life afterwards – they got 11 months.
• Talks are happening: The UK and the EU have until 31 December 2020 to agree a trade deal as well as other things, such as fishing rights.
• If there is no deal: Border checks and taxes will be introduced for goods travelling between the UK and the EU. But deal or no deal, we will still see changes.

Border preparations stepped up

It will use £20m software produced by the US tech firm Palantir, which gathers information from different government computers, in the hope of minimising the amount of “short-term” disruption at the border in the days and weeks after 1 January.

Cabinet Office minister Michael Gove said the new system would enable the authorities to identify and get on top of bottlenecks “quickly and decisively”.

Business groups have said delays at the border are inevitable given the looming changes to customs procedures while Labour said “glaring questions” remained unanswered about what businesses needed to do.

“The government is putting the burden on businesses to prepare for the end of the transition period when it has not explained what it is those businesses are getting ready for,” said shadow minister Rachel Reeves.

“The government is re-badging a basic element of preparation but still can’t tell us how many customs agents are recruited or trained or whether crucial IT is ready.”

Speaking to the BBC, Mr Gove said: “A lot of what businesses need to do is the same whether or not we get a free trade agreement or not.

“There’s no harm in doing these things because they’ll be necessary come what may.”

To tackle what the Cabinet Office calls the “challenges” of potential disruption at the UK border next year, a Border Operations Centre will use big data technology to try to “identify the root causes” of hold-ups to passengers and freight.

The software system is produced by the controversial US tech firm Palantir and will pull together information from different government computers to monitor the flow of people and vehicles across the UK border.

Palantir has courted controversy in the United States, where its systems are used by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

This has led the human rights organisation Amnesty International to warn of “a high risk that Palantir is contributing to serious human rights violations of migrants and asylum-seekers”.

The company denies the suggestion and says it remains extremely concerned about protecting human rights, privacy rights, and civil liberties in general.

The UK government has stressed that Palantir will only process data in Britain and that strict measures are in place to protect personal information.

What is changing in immigration?

The UK’s new immigration system will determine who can work in the country from 1 January.

Online applications for visas via a range of new “routes” will open on Tuesday.

Applications for skilled worker visas will be judged on the basis of a points system, which is modelled on the system in place in Australia for many years.

Points will be awarded for a job offer at the appropriate skill level in an eligible occupation, knowledge of English and whether applicants meet a salary threshold – which will typically be at least £25,600.

The cost of applying will be between £610 to £1,408 and people will have to show they have enough money to support themselves as well as having proof of identity.

Applicants will have to wait about three weeks to find out whether they have been successful.

How do the rules affect people already living in the UK?

EU citizens already living in the UK by 31 December and their families do not have to go through the new system but instead can apply to the EU Settlement Scheme, and have until 30 June 2021 to do so.

If they are successful, they will be able to remain in the UK and claim the same benefits as UK citizens if they become unemployed.

Irish citizens do not need to apply to the scheme and will not require permission to come to the UK, as the UK and Ireland are both part of a Common Travel Area.

Different rules apply to workers from outside the EU, and EU migrants arriving after the end of the transition period. Those who lose their job will have to return to their home country, unless they have indefinite leave to remain.

The Home Office rules about which workers can remain in the UK after losing a job are complex but can be read here.

Route for ‘exceptional talent’

Home Secretary Priti Patel said the system would be “simple, effective and flexible” and enable employers to fill skills gaps while also placing a greater onus on firms to train and invest in British workers.

Ms Patel and other critics of free movement have long argued it has left British firms overly reliant on low-skilled workers from the continent and put applicants from the rest of the rest of the world at a disadvantage.

But unions have warned of a looming crisis over the recruitment of social care staff under the new rules and says action is also needed to support those foreign-born NHS workers whose visas are expiring.

Applications also opened on Tuesday for Global Talent, Innovator and Start-Up visas designed to attract “those who have an exceptional talent or show exceptional promise in the fields of engineering, science, tech or culture”.

New rules for international students came into force in October.

The rights of the more than three million EU citizens already working in the UK are protected under the terms of the Withdrawal Agreement signed by the UK and EU earlier this year.

As of 30 September, 2.1 million people had been granted settled status and 1.6 million pre-settled status – ensuring they can remain in the UK.

Source: bbc.com
Published: 1 December 2020

We are delighted and proud to publish the 3rd edition of the IM Yearbook 2020/21. This years edition naturally includes thought leadership on how COVID-19 has impacted the sector, with contributions from many professionals involved in immigration. Our cover story is a focussed analysis on the links between investment migration and the UN Sustainable Developments Goals. Download your complimentary copy form here:  https://bit.ly/3nXhigz if you wish to obtain a hard copy please email the secretariat on media@investmentmigration.org who can make arrangements against a fee to cover postage.

In his weekly Global Public Square ABC television program, Fareed Zakaria recently underlined the great contribution that immigrants have been making to America. After pointing out that the search for a new vaccine to defeat Covid-19 has been led by several immigrant leaders, including immigrants like Pfizer’s CEO Albert Bouria, Bio-Tech’s CEO Ugur Sahin and Moderna’s CEO Stephane Bancel, among others, he went on to provide some interesting insights about the role of immigrants in the American economy.

Those familiar with the impact of immigrants on the American economy will know some of the basics. For example, a quarter of all new businesses in America are founded by immigrants. According to the National Foundation for American Policy, more than half of all the startups in the tech sector valued at a billion dollars or more were founded by immigrants. One study of Silicon Valley’s economy found six out of every 10 highly skilled tech workers was actually born abroad.

In his program, Zakaria added the following interesting insights:

“It’s not just in technology that the pandemic highlighted our reliance on foreign-born workers. Analysis by the Migration Policy Institute found 38% of home health aids, 29% of physicians, and 23% of pharmacists are immigrants, even though foreign-born workers make up only 17% of the overall workforce. For foreign laborers, graders, and sorters, that number jumps to 55%, according to the USDA. In fact, 70% of immigrants work in occupations that the federal government classified as essential during the pandemic.”

These are not just statistics. They draw our attention to the fact that an influx of immigrants is the lifeblood of the American economy and to ignore, or what is worse to deny this input, is to cheat ourselves and our offspring out of a future of prosperity and abundance. So the question is, how can the new incoming Biden/Harris administration continue to support this tremendous track record of achievements from immigrants to America? In the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) document A Vision for America as a Welcoming Nation, the association puts forward it’s recommendations. The document calls for the administration to take up 11 initiatives:

1) Proclaim a message of welcome; 2) Ensure fairness, efficiency and accountability in the legal immigration system; 3) Restore integrity, fairness, and efficiency to the immigration courts; 4) Ensure the fair and humane treatment of migrants at the border; 5) Restore asylum law and protections for victims of crime; 6) Guarantee legal assistance and counsel; 7) End inhumane detention; 8) Set a vision for immigration enforcement that is fair, humane and effective; 9) Improve Customs and Border Pprotection adjudications and processing at ports of entry; 10) Protect undocumented people and others with deep ties to America; 11) Reform employment-based and family-based visa programs; and 12) Ensure the Department of State is properly resourced to provide fair and efficient consular processing.

The problem is not everything can be addressed at once. So what can the new administration do to start off in the right direction?

According to Gregory Chen, Senior Director of Government Relations at AILA, the new administration needs to focus on what is quickly doable to start. He identified a few things recently, largely taking his cue from the Vision for America document:

1. The President needs to start off with a speech that can set a new tone in the way America deals with immigrants.
2. He can rescind some of Trump’s most egregious proclamations, namely those dealing with Muslims, asylum and work visa prohibitions.
3. He can reverse course on family separations at the border, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) enforcement and removals of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) immigrants.
4. He can prioritize who should be the subject of enforcement actions, such as hardened criminals and violent offenders.
5. He can revisit the way asylum claimants are being dealt with.

According to Chen, there are some 1.25 million backlogged cases awaiting adjudication in the immigration courts and some five million cases adjudicated each year. More immigration judges are needed, but they should not be appointed based on political viewpoints. Restoring transparency and stakeholder engagement should be a priority. Revising litigation strategy related to cases in courts, such as the public charge issue, as well as cutting off new emerging offensive, so-called “midnight hour” Trump regulations, on asylum, the Executive Office for Immigration Review and employment matters, before they do much damage are areas that can be attended to now.

More generally, the new administration will start off by nominating certain individuals to key Cabinet and administrative posts, such as the Secretaries of the Department of State and the Department of Homeland Security, and the Directors the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS), and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). These are likely to take time due to the need for Senate approvals. But lower level appointments in the administration can be made by the President alone and that can be done quickly.

As for what can be expected to get bipartisan support in Congress, the most likely areas will be the Dreamers (DACA), the TPS immigrants and changes to employment -based regulations, particularly related to integrity matters. Otherwise, depending on what happens in the Georgia Senate races, Congress is not likely to be a place where much immigration reform can be expected.

In short, there is a lot to do. Even if the dream of most immigration lawmakers, pundits and activists of comprehensive immigration reform is not likely to be realized any time soon, much can nonetheless be improved with a bit of leadership and initiative coming from the White House. Millions of peoples lives are affected by these issues and much improvement can be made with some effort and good common sense.

Source: forbes.com
Published: 23 November 2020

Everything You Need to Know About the New Maltese Exceptional Investor Naturalization (MEIN) Regulations

See detailed application requirements, application forms, timelines, the code of ethics, the agent license application, and the regulation handbook.

As promised, Malta’s government yesterday published the regulations for its new expedited route to citizenship through investment. The policy’s formal name (note that official communications have studiously avoided referring to the policy as a “program”) is the rather clunky Maltese Citizenship by Naturalisation for Exceptional Services by Direct Investment. Not bound by the same circumscriptive limitations as officialdom, IMI will – for the sake of simplicity – henceforth refer to the policy as Maltese Exceptional Investor Naturalization (MEIN).

Under the MEIN policy, the number of citizenship certificates issued to principal applicants (i.e., excluding dependents) shall not exceed 400 a year and 1,500 for the duration of the policy.

The salient differences in policy between the MIIP and MEIN, which have not changed materially since first announced this summer, are summarized below, courtesy of Luke Frendo of Frendo Advisory:

• Contribution
  The amount is either €600,000 or €750,000, depending on whether the standard (36 months) or expedited (12 months) residency route is chosen. For Dependents, the contribution is set at €50,000.
• Donation
  A €10,000 compulsory donation to an NGO is introduced. Previously, this was generally done but at an amount of €5,000.
• Residential property
  Threshold for purchasing a property is increased to €700,000, while the threshold for rental remains unchanged at €16,000 per annum. This needs to be held for five years from the issuance of the certificate of citizenship.
• Government bonds
  The requirement to invest in Government bonds is removed altogether.
• Due diligence fees
  There is a slight increase in the due diligence fees (to €15,000 for main applicant and €10,000 for dependents).
• Maximum Age Threshold
  The maximum age threshold for dependents is increased from 27 to 29. Further, dependents who are deemed to meet the legal definition of disability can form part of a parent’s application, regardless of age.
• Application for residence
  All adult dependents need to apply for residence, not just the main applicant. The non-refundable pre-payment of the contribution at this stage, increased from €5,000 to €10,000. There is also a €5,000 fee for the main applicant.

Procedural steps:

• Application for residence;
• Submission of eligibility assessment (due diligence);
• Approval in Principle à payment of contribution;
• Submission for naturalization for exceptional services by direct investment (that is, for citizenship);
• Oath-swearing, within at most 6 months of approval/conferment of citizenship/issuance of passport(s).

Maltese law firm and RCBI specialists Chetcuti Cauchi Advocates have helpfully provided details on which categories of persons qualify as dependents:

An applicant applying under these regulations can include in a citizenship application the following dependents:

• The spouse in a monogamous marriage or partner having the same or similar status. The term ‘spouse’ shall be construed as gender neutral
• A child of the Main Applicant or the spouse under the age of eighteen (18)
• An economically dependent and unmarried  child of the Main Applicant or the spouse who has not yet attained the age of twenty-nine (29), at the time when the citizenship application is accepted by the Agency
• A child of the Main Applicant or the spouse, including an adopted child who at the time of the application has attained the age of eighteen (18) and is qualified as a person with a disability
• An economically dependent parent or grandparent of the Main Applicant or the spouse above the age of 55

Chetcuti Cauchi has also outlined the grounds for ineligibility:

• The person or any of the dependants is or was indicted of an offence before an International Criminal Court or has been arraigned at any time before an International Criminal Court, whether such person has been found guilty or otherwise
• The person or any of the dependants are listed with INTERPOL or EUROPOL
• The person or any of the dependants is an actual or potential threat to Malta’s national security, public policy or public health
• The person or any of the dependants has been charged or found guilty of terrorism, money laundering, funding of terrorism, crimes against humanity, war crimes, defilement of minors, indecent assault and other serious crimes
• The person or any of the dependants has been found guilty or suspected or has criminal charges brought against him for any criminal offence punishable with more than one (1) year imprisonment, other than an involuntary offence
• The person or any of the dependants is or is likely to be involved in any activity which may cause disrepute to the Republic of Malta
• The person or any of the dependants has been denied a visa to a country with whom Malta has visa-free travel arrangements with, and has not subsequently obtained a visa from that country
• The person or any of the dependants is named or listed in international sanctions

If an applicant makes a false statement or otherwise omits material information, the application may be suspended and considered inadmissible. 

One agent previously licensed under the MIIP shared with IMI a number of key documents related to the MEIN policy, which readers may download below:

• The Maltese Citizenship by Naturalisation for Exceptional Services by Direct Investment Handbook
• License Agreement and Code of Conduct and Ethics for Agents
• Form M7 – Agent License Application Form
• Foreword by Alex Muscat, Parliamentary Secretary for Citizenship & Communities
• Form J – Application for Residence Documentation – Economic Self-Sufficiency
• Form K – Application for a Residence Permit – Economic Self-Sufficiency
• Form ID 1A – Identity Registration Form – Non-Maltese Nationals
• Form ID2 – Image Capture Application Form

According to the agent license application form, the fee for successful license applications amounts to EUR 5,000, a fee that is payable upon renewal once a year.

“Harshly politicized”
In his foreword accompanying the MEIN policy documents, Secretary Muscat once more reiterated his unwavering commitment to retaining Maltese sovereignty on questions of naturalization and lamented the politicization of citizenship by investment:

“Despite the obvious economic benefits and the opportunity for better social development for Malta and for the Maltese, the Government has paid attention to the recommendations given by all the stakeholders involved and the EU Commission and availed itself of the constructive opinions of all those who provided them. The Government is acting in a rational manner because citizenship is, indeed, a matter that deserves to be treated without divisive blinkers. There is no political hue that should be attributed to it. Neither should such a fundamental concept: the attribution of citizenship, be up to any authority other than the Maltese to decide upon. Much to our disappointment, our initiatives have found themselves harshly politicised. The arguments being raised against the previous programme are largely political, with little to no legal substance to them.”

Muscat effectively dismissed the calls for a phase-out of citizenship by investment in Malta, instead pointing out that MEIN represents a refining of already-successful policies.

“We will not simply shelve initiatives that are proving to be beneficial to our society, but we will improve them. We have always displayed an attitude of dialogue on national and international levels, both with stakeholders and with the European Commission itself.”

Don’t call it a program
Despite the long-awaited publication of the new regulations, several program stakeholders have told IMI that authorities are requesting they refrain from marketing the MEIN policy. IMI understands that the decision to tell agents to keep a low marketing profile, as well as the conspicuous avoidance of the term “program”, is a reaction to previously published European Parliament reports that have criticized routes to EU naturalization in the guise of structured programs, all the while expressing no particular concern with more conventional routes to naturalization.

A few hundred carefully scrutinized investors a year were naturalized under Malta’s erstwhile IIP. The Commission argued that a non-negligible proportion of these constituted a security/corruption/money-laundering risk to the European Community. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of fraud-based naturalizations have taken place in the same period on the Southeastern periphery of the EU, and hundreds of thousands of legitimate but far more lightly vetted naturalizations take place under conventional routes (marriage, adoption, and so on) across the EU each year, without triggering infringement procedures. By not referring to MEIN as a program, Maltese authorities are, essentially, calling out European hypocrisy on the matter.

The European Commission’s opening of infringement procedures against Malta and Cyprus over their respective CIPs last month have been widely rejected as ultra vires by experts on EU law. Maltese authorities have consistently maintained that those procedures are politically motivated rather than grounded in legal concerns and that they are prepared to defend this position in an eventual case in the European Court of Justice .

Know when to fold’em
Earlier this week, Paddy Blewer of Henley & Partners, the erstwhile concessionaire of the now-discontinued Malta IIP, told International Adviser that the “Commission’s move is a short-term political gamble with short/medium- and long-term risks. They clearly felt there was a window of opportunity to attack a policy that certain EU stakeholders do not like,” adding also that the Commission’s legal case was “remarkably weak” and that it raised “serious questions on the erosion of member state sovereignty vs centralization of power in Brussels.”

Employing a gambling-analogy, Blewer characterized the dispute as a game of “geopolitical poker,” in which the Commission appears to betting that Malta and Cyprus will be the first to blink.

“The Commission is a well-known successful player and pretends to be confident but they have a very weak hand. If Malta and Cyprus and other sovereign states call the Commission’s bluff on this case, Brussels might have to fold to avoid longer-term political damage.”

Welcoming the new rules, Andrés Gutierrez of Malta Sotheby’s International Realty said they reflected a “commitment from the Maltese government to maintain the highest standards of due diligence and also aligned well with the interests of both the country and prospective investors.

“By replacing the MIIP and moving towards a refined MEIN policy for the concession of residency and citizenship rights, Malta has shown that it has effectively listened to all stakeholders involved, including the EU, but also clearly stated that citizenship rights are the exclusive remit of each member state.”

Source: imidaily.com
Published: 21 November 2020

Caribbean: The citizenship by investment industry is one that, in recent years, has been growing exponentially. Born in the Caribbean’s Federation of St Kitts and Nevis, it is a phenomenon that has spread to all corners of the globe, including the Middle East, Europe, Asia, and even Oceania.

While some of this growth found its roots in the economic crisis, in the aftermath of which Bulgaria, Cambodia, Malta, and Cyprus all either launched or overhauled their citizenship by investment offerings, many recent launches are more rightly attributable to countries’ need to diversify their economy, stimulate foreign direct investment, and draw successful businesspersons to their shores.

In the past four years alone, five new citizenship by investment programmes were launched: the Montenegro Citizenship by Investment Programme in 2019, the Jordanian Citizenship by Investment Programme in 2018, the Turkey Citizenship by Investment Programme and the Vanuatu Development Support Programme in 2017, and the St Lucia Citizenship by Investment Programme in 2016.

Some of these new programmes are among the world’s most popular. This is the case, for example, for Turkey, where the Government revealed that, as of May 2020, 10,493 main applicants had been approved under its programme (a number, therefore, that excludes any family members that may have applied together with the main applicant). Of those 10,493 investors, 4,000 received citizenship between March 2020 and May 2020 alone.

Vanuatu’s citizenship by investment schemes have also been successful, particularly among applicants from China. In the first six months of 2020, twin programmes Vanuatu Development Support Programme and Vanuatu Contribution Programme brought in VT 7,094.2 million (around 63 million dollars) – a sum that amounted to 38% of the Government’s overall revenue, and that was around 32% higher than in the same time period in 2019.

To date, there are 12 active citizenship by investment programmes. The number was even higher in the summer (14), but, since then, both Malta and Cyprus have suspended their programmes pending a re-evaluation of their requirements and due diligence.

Indeed, much of the success of a citizenship by investment programme rests on due diligence, and the country’s ability to thoroughly vet applicants, their families, and their source of funds. The Caribbean has led the way in this respect, with countries enshrining multi-tiered due diligence regimes in their programme regulations. These regimes include background checks performed by specialised Government entities, as well as by external and independent due diligence firms. Intergovernmental agencies are also involved, including Interpol and the Joint Regional Communications Centre, which receive information from partner countries such as Canada and the United Kingdom. Due diligence also takes the form of banned nationality policies, which exclude people from countries where accurate due diligence cannot be performed.

While the citizenship by investment industry is certainly one that is popular and, in large part, successful, it pales in comparison to the residence by investment industry. Residence by investment programmes are far more widespread, encompassing countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Italy, Australia, Singapore, and Japan – to name but a small handful. Residence by investment nations have also seen incredible returns on their programmes. Between 2012 and August 2020, Portugal received €5,488,957,942.38 in investment. Spain is estimated to have generated a minimum of €711,000,000 in 2019 alone.

Citizenship and residence by investment have made their mark all across their globe, and, with the first year of the Covid-19 pandemic largely behind us and countries needing new ways to stimulate their economies, they look set not merely to stay, but to hasten their prominence.

Source: wicnews.com
Published: 20 November 2020

What is the True Fiscal Impact of Immigration in the UK?

In the UK, immigration is frequently characterised as a detriment to the economy. From the repeated assertion that free movement drives down wages, to newspapers proclaiming the harm that migrants inflict on public services, the discourse is awash with the notion that immigration equals economic demise.

But are any of these claims rooted in fact? Although they are widely circulated, this is not necessarily a testament to their veracity. Immigration is a hugely salient political issue, and such associations may stem from a calculated attempt to depict immigration in a negative light, rather than from robust and accurate data. The only way to establish truth is to take a close, objective look at the evidence.

Calculating fiscal impact

Understanding immigration’s fiscal impact hinges on calculating the difference between what migrants contribute to the public purse through taxation, and what they take from it through benefits and public services. This process is inherently complex- researchers reach very different conclusions regarding the exact revenues and expenditures to take into account.

Income tax, National Insurance and VAT on purchases are always included within migrants’ fiscal contributions, but on occasion, so too are shares of taxes paid by UK businesses. Similarly, fiscal costs always include services such as NHS care and education, but at times encompass government spending on defence. The ability for researchers to be selective in this regard yields very different findings, thus providing scope for migrants to be portrayed in a more negative or positive light depending on stance.

Further to this, a lack of accessible data means that assumptions are a necessary part of the calculation process, such as when deciding on the exact share of taxes paid by UK businesses to attribute to migrants. This too leads to considerable variation within findings, enabling commentators to focus on those that most closely match their point of view.

Researchers must also make a number of other critical decisions, such as whether to examine migrants’ fiscal impact in absolute terms or relative to the UK-born population. An absolute approach- which involves looking solely at migrants’ cost and contributions without reference to the wider populace- is hindered because it omits the wider context. While migrants may represent a fiscal cost in a particular year, the UK-born may represent an either bigger cost, thus rendering the findings substantially less negative than they first appear.

A similar truth holds for static versus dynamic analysis. Static analysis involves a comparison of migrants’ costs and contributions in a given year, the advantages being that hard data is available and assumptions about the future are unnecessary. However, it suffers the drawback of providing a snapshot of migrants’ fiscal impact rather than encapsulating their entire lifecycle. In contrast, dynamic analysis does look at the entire lifecycle, but is hampered by a reliance on assumptions.

The complexity involved with calculating migrants’ fiscal impact goes some way towards explaining the prevalence of negative narratives, as findings can be shaped and presented to suit a particular agenda. It is now important to assess whether such narratives are backed up by hard evidence.

Establishing the truth

Despite the varying conclusions that researchers draw, two points are consistently agreed upon. First, that EEA migrants contribute more than non-EEA migrants, and second, that more recent migrants contribute more than migrants overall.

A 2018 Oxford Economics study found that in the 2016/17 financial year, EEA migrants made a net fiscal contribution of £4.7bn, whereas non-EEA migrants and the UK-born population represented fiscal costs of £9bn and £41.4bn respectively. Focusing solely on these figures, it is wholly inaccurate to depict all immigration as economically harmful.

But by picking and choosing which elements of the data to focus on, a negative picture can be created. The £9bn cost incurred by non-EEA migrants could be seized upon and viewed in absolute terms, thus deleting the critical context of the even greater loss incurred by the native population. It is less that the cliché about immigration and high fiscal costs is based on false statistics, and more that it stems from the manipulation of data and selective research.

The role of selective research is illustrated by a 2016 Migration Watch study of the 2014/15 financial year. Its findings reveal that both EEA and non-EEA migrants represented a net fiscal cost- £1.2bn and £15.6bn respectively. Although it analyses a different year to the Oxford Economics study, this alone does not explain the marked difference in findings. What does are the different assumptions made by the researchers, such as the proportion of taxes paid by businesses to attribute to migrants.

The second point of agreement- that recent migrants contribute more than migrants overall- also sheds light on how results can be manipulated to suit particular narratives. The aforementioned Migration Watch study found that in 2014/15, EEA migrants represented a net fiscal cost of £1.1bn, whereas recent EEA migrants broke even. Choosing to present the first figure as representative of migration’s fiscal impact will inevitably create a negative picture, but as the full research shows, this does not tell the entire story.

Reflecting on the available evidence, immigration’s long-standing association with economic demise does not have a statistical basis. In almost every instance, migrants are found to contribute more to the public purse than the UK-born population. However, as the numbers can be shaped and presented in accordance with stance, negative stereotypes can be created. For truth to prevail, evidence must be presented in an objective and comprehensive manner.

Cameron Boyle is a political correspondent for the Immigration Advice Service, an organisation of immigration lawyers that help undocumented migrants to regulate their status.

UAE to expand 10-year golden visa system to all doctors, PhD holders and highly skilled workers

The UAE will significantly expand its 10-year golden visa system next month to attract foreign professionals and encourage them to settle for longer.

The change means any medical doctor will qualify for the long-term visa.

In addition, a wide range of scientists and data experts will be able to easily secure long-term residency, as will all PhD holders.

The list includes people with backgrounds in computer and electrical engineering, biotechnology and those with AI and programming expertise.

Pupils who leave high school with top marks would also be eligible – along with their families. Students leaving universities with a GPA of 3.8 will also be included.

Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid, Vice President and Ruler of Dubai, announced the nationwide move on Sunday. It will come into effect from December and the application website is here.

“We want to keep those who are talented here so we can continue together our journey of development and achievement,” he said.

The original scheme brought in last year was aimed at top investors, company executives and scientists.

Some wealthy expat business owners with long-standing investments and contributions were approached or invited to apply.

Dr Ramanathan Venkiteswaran, medical director of Medcare and Aster Hospitals and Clinics, said his teams were thrilled by the news.

The UAE will significantly expand its 10-year golden visa system next month to attract foreign professionals and encourage them to settle for longer.

The change means any medical doctor will qualify for the long-term visa.

In addition, a wide range of scientists and data experts will be able to easily secure long-term residency, as will all PhD holders.

The list includes people with backgrounds in computer and electrical engineering, biotechnology and those with AI and programming expertise.

Pupils who leave high school with top marks would also be eligible – along with their families. Students leaving universities with a GPA of 3.8 will also be included.

Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid, Vice President and Ruler of Dubai, announced the nationwide move on Sunday. It will come into effect from December and the application website is here.

“We want to keep those who are talented here so we can continue together our journey of development and achievement,” he said.

The original scheme brought in last year was aimed at top investors, company executives and scientists.

Some wealthy expat business owners with long-standing investments and contributions were approached or invited to apply.

Dr Ramanathan Venkiteswaran, medical director of Medcare and Aster Hospitals and Clinics, said his teams were thrilled by the news.

“Since the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, doctors have been at the frontline of battling this deadly virus,” he told The National.

“The extended visa will provide opportunity for doctors to continue to serve the people, striving for excellence in all fields of patient care.”

Dr Amgad Farouk, a consultant urologist who works for Medcare’s Al Safa hospital, said the move would “attract many more doctors to Dubai and create a medical hub for any health issue”.

In the UAE, a person’s residential status is typically tied to their employer through a residency visa. It is cancelled once the two part ways and the former employee typically has 30 days to secure a new visa or find another job.
 

Boost for R&D industry

Long-term visas mean the person has far greater flexibility, can plan ahead, more easily sponsor their family and has piece of mind about their status in the country.

Dr Boutheina Tlili, associate professor of electrical engineering at Rochester Institute of Technology’s campus in Dubai, said the decision was a boom for the research and development industry.

“The number of students in research will surge with this 10-year-visa and universities here will soon catch up with universities in Europe and the US,” she said.

She said securing visas for post-doctoral candidates has been problematic at times.

PhD and post-doctoral students would often be given a one or two-year visas but their research would take much longer.

“We would not know if the student would be able to stay in the country and there was no stability,” she said.

“Now, this gives us more stability to plan ahead for research. Now, students can stay back and complete their research.”

Dr Tlili, 55, who is originally from Tunisia and made Dubai her second home 17 years ago, also hopes to take advantage of the 10-year visa and then retire in the UAE.

At present, her employer renews her residency visa every three years.

“I have been mentoring female engineers in the UAE for years and want to continue to contribute to the community here,” she said.

Last month, Dubai brought in a scheme to attract remote workers from around the globe to the emirate. Officials hope the country’s tax-free status and year-round sunshine will appeal to skilled workers whose companies have moved to long-term home working.

The scheme does not require employees to work for a locally-based company, which has long been a feature of the visa system.

The coronavirus pandemic has also put the spotlight on the contributions of medical personnel and other crucial frontline workers.

In September, the government opened a database of professionals of all nationalities that were deemed crucial to tackling the pandemic or any future crisis.

About 80,000 doctors, nurses, hospital workers and others were added to the ‘frontline heroes’ register.

As part of the programme, frontline heroes are awarded various benefits including help with living costs and school fees, where needed.

Source: thenationalnews.com
Published: 17 November 2020

The IMC is delighted to announce the appointment of Mr Kieron Sharp to the IMC Advisory Committee.

Mr Sharp is a former Detective Chief Superintendent in charge of Specialist Crime Operations in the City of London Police and Head of the Economic Crime Department to Interpol in Lyon. Kieron is also a graduate of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) National Academy in Quantico, Virginia

The Department of Homeland Security was molded in President Trump’s image, and not just on immigration policy. President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. will have work to do to remake it.

President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. has said that one of his first priorities will be rolling back his predecessor’s restrictive immigration policies. To do it, he may have to overhaul the Department of Homeland Security, which has been bent to President Trump’s will over the past four years.

The department, created after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, has helped enforce some of Mr. Trump’s most divisive policies, like separating families at the border, banning travel from Muslim-majority countries and building his border wall. When the president tried to reframe his campaign around law and order this year, homeland security leaders rallied to the cause, deploying tactical officers to protect statues and confront protesters.

After agents were videotaped hauling demonstrators off the streets of Portland, Ore., into unmarked vans, department critics called for systemic changes to the agency, or even its dismantlement. But the incoming administration is intent on keeping the department intact.

Still, change is coming.

Interviews with 16 current and former homeland security officials and advisers involved with Mr. Biden’s transition, and a review of his platform, suggest an agenda that aims to incorporate climate change in department policy, fill vacant posts and bolster responsibilities that Mr. Trump neglected, including disaster response and cybersecurity.

But undoing Mr. Trump’s immigration policies will initially dominate.

Many of the Trump administration’s policies cannot be immediately undone, and Mr. Biden is likely to face an early test if migration to the southwestern border surges with Mr. Trump’s pending departure.

That could be politically fraught, balancing the demands of the Democratic left for more lenient immigration policies, with the concerns of moderates who fear such issues cost the party dearly in House and Senate elections this month. Mr. Trump campaigned on a hard-line immigration agenda when he won the election in 2016 and the policies remain a central appeal to many who have supported Mr. Trump.

“If it looks like they’re just kicking the can down the road, then people will be very angry,” said Marisa Franco, the executive director of Mijente, a Latino civil rights organization, who served on a task force that issued recommendations to the Biden campaign.

Mr. Trump measured the success of his homeland security secretaries primarily by the progress of his border wall and the monthly totals of arrests made by his border agents.

The 23-member transition team announced by Mr. Biden last week indicates he will bolster the other responsibilities of the sprawling department. The team includes at least four former officials with Citizenship and Immigration Services, the legal immigration agency that has been mired in financial struggles. The leader of the team, Ur Jaddou, was a chief counsel for the agency under President Barack Obama and frequent critic of Mr. Trump’s policies.

The group also features multiple former Obama administration officials who focused on cybersecurity, emergency response and transportation security. Mr. Trump had a team of only four transition advisers for homeland security.

“If you look at what’s going on in the world now, in addition to border security and T.S.A. airline issues, you have a pandemic and an unprecedented hurricane season,” said Michael Chertoff, a homeland security secretary under President George W. Bush, referring to the Transportation Security Administration. Mr. Biden, he said, will take “a broader-based, more strategic approach.”

A team composed mostly of volunteers separate from Mr. Biden’s official transition team has worked for weeks on that approach. Those volunteers, including Mr. Obama’s former director of the Domestic Policy Council, Cecilia Muñoz, and his former deputy homeland security adviser, Amy Pope, have focused on infusing climate change research into the decision-making of the next department leadership.

While the agency will not become “the department of climate,” one adviser said, the new administration will use the research to shape natural disaster response and resilience to assist the Coast Guard as it patrols the Arctic. The next homeland security leaders could rely on climate science to predict migration from places like Guatemala, where coffee rust has disrupted the crops farmers rely on.

“This is something that needs to be a long term priority for D.H.S.,” said Thomas S. Warrick, a former top counterterrorism official in the department and a co-author of a report this year that emphasized the department’s future roles defending against cyberthreats, pandemics and white supremacy.

Mr. Warrick’s co-author, Caitlin Durkovich, is on Mr. Biden’s official transition team.

The volunteer team has emphasized that change will come not from a drastic restructuring but from personnel. Of the 74 leadership positions at the Department of Homeland Security, 18 are either vacant or held by an acting official. Even those serving in acting capacities have had their appointments questioned by government watchdogs and the courts. As recently as Saturday, a federal judge said Chad F. Wolf, the acting secretary of homeland security, was not serving lawfully when he issued a memo in July suspending protections for the immigrants brought to the United States as children known as Dreamers.

Two advisers involved in the planning meetings said the team was advising the incoming administration to steer clear of all officials who led the agencies overseeing immigration, even those who publicly resisted the White House’s efforts or publicly turned against Mr. Trump.

They are “poisoned,” one adviser said.

Some transition officials have rallied around Alejandro N. Mayorkas, a former homeland security deputy secretary and director of Citizenship and Immigration Services, to be the next secretary.

Mr. Mayorkas’s supporters believe his background as a U.S. attorney for California and as a Cuban immigrant would appeal to both the law enforcement officials in the agency and the immigrant communities in the United States. They emphasized that a decision on the position had not yet been made.

But reinstating officials who served under Mr. Obama, who was criticized as the “deporter in chief” and who expanded detentions at the border to respond to a surge of migrants, could cause consternation on the left.

“My hope is people can see some of the errors of their ways,” Ms. Franco said, adding, “We’ll be vigilant.”

The Trump administration enacted more than 400 changes to tighten or choke off immigration, and while Mr. Biden can roll back the ones issued through executive orders or policy memorandums, rescinding policies that went through the full regulatory process will take time, according to Sarah Pierce, a policy analyst for the Migration Policy Institute.

“On immigration, I expect them to stick to things that are high profile, very easy procedurally and come with minimal logistical burden,” Ms. Pierce said.

That includes ending travel bans that restrict travel from 13 mostly Muslim and African countries and halting the Trump administration’s efforts to strip protections for about 700,000 young immigrants brought to the country as children.

Mr. Biden also plans to raise the cap on refugee admissions to 125,000, impose a 100-day moratorium on deportations and direct Immigration and Customs Enforcement to focus on violent offenders. But it remains unclear how he will rebuild a deteriorated resettlement system to welcome that many immigrants or the specific details of his temporary halt on removing undocumented immigrants.

The new administration will end the national emergency declaration that allowed Mr. Trump to divert billions of Pentagon dollars to the border wall, but an adviser involved in the transition said there were no plans to dismantle the 400 miles of wall already up.

Other regulations will prove more challenging to unravel, like the maze of asylum restrictions imposed by the Trump administration and the public charge rule that allows green cards to be denied to immigrants who are deemed likely to use public assistance.

Ms. Pierce said the new administration could begin the lengthy process of replacing the Trump regulations or, given that the public charge rule is still being litigated in court, revise that regulation in a settlement.

Mr. Biden has also revived the longstanding Democratic goal of creating a path to citizenship for nearly 11 million undocumented immigrants, but without a Democratic Senate, that is likely impossible. (Control of the Senate rests on two Senate runoff races in Georgia in January.)

An expected surge of migration to the southwestern border in the coming months will test Mr. Biden’s ability to balance the demands of the liberal and moderate wings of his party while preventing overflowing border facilities.

“We will treat our immigrants with respect and give them due process, which they aren’t having under this administration,” said Representative Lucille Roybal-Allard, the chairwoman of the House appropriations subcommittee on homeland security who represented the Biden campaign in platform negotiations with Senator Bernie Sanders. “Will that be enough? Probably no.”

The pandemic is another immediate challenge.

A threat assessment released by the Homeland Security Department in October concluded that the coronavirus had exacerbated “underlying economic and political conditions in the region” that have typically fueled migration.

Mr. Biden has said he will look to revive a version of a program that allowed children and young adults to apply for refuge in their home country, rather than making the long, dangerous trip to the border to ask for asylum. He has also said he would bolster aid to Central America while deploying attachés from the Justice and Treasury Departments to combat corruption.

But at the physical border, Mr. Biden’s plans center more so on what he will stop rather than what he will develop.

He has said he will stop “metering,” which restricts the number of migrants who can seek protection at border ports. It is unclear if he would pull out of agreements with Central American countries that allow the United States to divert migrants seeking protection back to the region. He would end Mr. Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” policy that has sent more than 60,000 migrants back to Mexico to await asylum hearings that have been suspended during the pandemic.

Mr. Biden’s advisers have discussed rushing asylum officers and immigration judges to the border to process those families and others seeking protection.

“The real question is scale. Can they be scaled up quickly enough if there is a surge to the border?” said one official involved in the transition.

Mr. Biden has not committed to lifting a public health emergency rule that has essentially sealed the border to asylum seekers. The Trump administration has cited the risk of the pandemic to empower Border Patrol agents to rapidly turn migrants back to Mexico or their home countries without providing the chance to have their asylum claims heard. An adviser to the campaign said the administration planned on consulting with public health officials to discuss the policy.

Biden advisers also acknowledged the need to bolster the capacity at the Department of Health and Human Services, which is responsible for sheltering migrant children traveling alone. That will take congressional approval.

Mr. Biden has said he would cut funding used to detain migrants and instead rely more on programs that track migrants after they are released into the United States to make sure they appear at immigration court.

Brandon Judd, the president of the National Border Patrol Council, the Border Patrol’s union, said that would mean the return of “catch-and-release,” pejorative shorthand for releasing migrants from detention into the public to await their immigration hearing. Mr. Trump has argued the policy encourages migration.

“Obviously my members were hoping President Trump was going to win, and they were hoping he was going to win because of what happens with border security,” Mr. Judd said. “Let’s hope Biden proves us wrong. But we’ve already seen this movie and we expect a replay.”

Source: nytimes.com
Published: 15 November 2020

On November 6, St Kitts and Nevis announced the implementation of new measures for citizenship applications submitted to its Citizenship by Investment Unit (CIU), stating ‘effective immediately, St Kitts and Nevis’ CIU would accept siblings onto all new applications.’

‘To qualify, a sibling can be either a brother or sister of the main applicant or of the spouse of the main applicant. Moreover, the sibling must also be unmarried, childless, 30 years of age or younger, and dependent on the main applicant for financial support. Unfortunately, a person who has already been approved for citizenship will not be able to ‘add’ a sibling to his or her application – this is a change that affects new applications only.’

Les Khan, chief executive officer of the CIU made the announcement to authorised persons, developers, international marketing agents, and other investor immigration industry stakeholders commented: ‘It is important to highlight that these changes will not compromise the stringent due diligence that applicants to our CBI programme must undergo.”

St Kitts and Nevis’ CBI programme, since 1984, has helped the country build and support its social, economic and health sector. Through CBI, the twin-island keep financially afloat during the COVID-19 lockdown.

St Kitts and Nevis recently reopened for international tourism, welcoming travellers from around the world. Reportedly, there has been an uptick in applications from US citizens who are looking to protect their family’s future by investing in a CBI programme.

The fastest and most straightforward route to second citizenship in St Kitts and Nevis is the Sustainable Growth Fund which currently offers applicants a limited-time offer. Successful applicants receive, a passport from St Kitts and Nevis gain access to visa-free or visa-on-arrival travel to nearly 160 destinations.

According to prime minister Timothy Harris in a recent webinar, “[Investors] think not just about citizenship, [they] think of a vibrant country, one such as St Kitts and Nevis, in which you know your returns will go tremendously.”

Source: menafn.com
Published: 10 November 2020