Latest news with #September11th
Local Italy
04-07-2025
- Politics
- Local Italy
Naturalisation becomes 'fragile' as European countries make moves to strip citizenship
The first Global State of Citizenship report, by the Global Citizenship Observatory (GLOBALCIT) at the European University Institute (EUI) in Florence, analysed citizenship laws in 191 countries in 2024. Researchers found that "with the growing number of armed conflicts and incidence of terrorism worldwide, many countries have introduced provisions for withdrawing the citizenship of a person on the basis of national security grounds.' Over a third of countries, including many in Europe, 'can now strip a person of their citizenship when their actions are seen as disloyal or threatening to state security,' the report said. The trend has been gaining pace in recent years. The move to make it easier to take away someone's newly acquired nationality is linked to an 'increasing securitisation of citizenship' since the 2001 September 11th terror attacks in the US. Between 2000 and 2020, 18 European countries put in place measures to deprive individuals of their citizenship for reasons of national security or counter-terrorism. Before 2001, these measures were 'virtually absent'. revocation of citizenship from individuals threatening national security. Germany's coalition parties discussed a similar policy for those found to be 'supporters of terrorism, antisemites, and extremists'. Hungary has also amended the constitution to allow the temporary suspension of citizenship for national security reasons. The Middle East and North Africa are other regions where these policies have expanded, the report said. Ways to strip citizenship Four ways were identified in the report for when individuals can be stripped of their citizenship on security grounds. Nearly 80 per cent of countries have rules covering at least one of these situations. In 132 countries around the world, and two thirds of European states, citizenship can be removed for acts that threaten national security, such as treason, espionage, trying to overthrow a government or terrorism. These laws exist in Belgium, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Turkey and the UK. In 89 countries, however, this rule concerns only people who were naturalised, not those who acquired citizenship by birth. Another reason that can lead to the stripping of citizenship is when naturalised individuals have committed serious criminal offences, which typically involves having been sentenced to imprisonment for a certain period. These rules exist in 79 countries but only a few in Europe. In 70 countries, citizenship can be removed if someone was found to have served in a foreign army and in 18 countries this measure concerns only people who acquired citizenship by naturalisation. In Europe, 40 percent of countries – including France, Germany, Greece, the Netherlands, Estonia, Turkey, Belarus and Bosnia Herzegovina – can remove citizenship under certain conditions if naturalised nationals were found to have served in a foreign army. Latvia, one of the countries that can revoke citizenship for such reasons, changed the law in 2022 to allow its citizens to work with the Ukrainian military forces. Citizenship can also be removed for providing non-military services to another state, such as being elected in a public office, working for certain agencies or even taking up a role in the civil service. Such rules exist in 75 countries around the world, including European countries such as France, Greece and Turkey. Naturalised citizens more at risk Luuk van der Baaren, co-author of the report, said 'these developments indeed raise an important question as to what extent citizenship is still a secure legal status'. The data also shows that 'a large share of the citizenship stripping provisions are discriminatory in nature, as they only apply to specific groups, particularly naturalised citizens'. This is to prevent a person from becoming stateless, but it means that 'citizens by birth have a secure legal status, while those who acquired citizenship later in life do not,' he added. Losing citizenship may not only affect the individual's security and opportunities for work, but also that of dependants, the report warned. In 40 percent of countries removing someone's citizenship can extend to their children. Other ways of losing citizenship There are other ways, intentional or not, that people can lose their citizenship, according to the report. The most common, is to have it withdrawn because it was acquired in a fraudulent way. Such rules exist in 157 countries. Some 156 states also have rules on how to voluntarily renounce citizenship, usually with provisions to ensure that a person does not end up stateless. In 56 countries, people can lose their citizenship if they acquire another nationality, and in 55 this may occur by simply residing abroad. Under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 'everyone has the right to a nationality', but four million people in the world are stateless 'because their citizenship remains denied or unrecognised,' the report continued. On the other hand, 35 countries do not allow people to renounce citizenship, or they make it impossible in practice. Unequal rights The report also looked at ways to acquire citizenship and concluded different countries offered 'highly unequal pathways'. Countries make vastly different demands on applicants when it comes to criteria such as economic self-sufficiency, civic or cultural integration, language or citizenship tests, and renunciation of other citizenships. And on residency requirements, the Americas and Western Europe have the more inclusive measures. Citizenship in European countries is also regulated via the European Convention on Nationality, under which the residence requirement cannot exceed 10 years. But in 15 countries the wait is longer than 10 years: Equatorial Guinea (40 years), United Arab Emirates (30), Bahrain (25), Qatar (25), Bhutan (20), Brunei (20), Eritrea (20), Oman (20), Chad (15), Gambia (15), Nigeria (15), Rwanda (15), Sierra Leone (15), St. Kitts and Nevis (14), and India (11).
Local Norway
02-07-2025
- Politics
- Local Norway
Naturalisation becomes 'fragile' as European countries make moves to strip citizenship
The first Global State of Citizenship report, by the Global Citizenship Observatory (GLOBALCIT) at the European University Institute (EUI) in Florence, analysed citizenship laws in 191 countries in 2024. Researchers found that "with the growing number of armed conflicts and incidence of terrorism worldwide, many countries have introduced provisions for withdrawing the citizenship of a person on the basis of national security grounds.' Over a third of countries, including many in Europe, 'can now strip a person of their citizenship when their actions are seen as disloyal or threatening to state security,' the report said. The trend has been gaining pace in recent years. The move to make it easier to take away someone's newly acquired nationality is linked to an 'increasing securitisation of citizenship' since the 2001 September 11th terror attacks in the US. Between 2000 and 2020, 18 European countries put in place measures to deprive individuals of their citizenship for reasons of national security or counter-terrorism. Before 2001, these measures were 'virtually absent'. Recently, the Swedish government commissioned an inquiry on the revocation of citizenship from individuals threatening national security . Germany's coalition parties discussed a similar policy for those found to be 'supporters of terrorism, antisemites, and extremists'. Hungary has also amended the constitution to allow the temporary suspension of citizenship for national security reasons. The Middle East and North Africa are other regions where these policies have expanded, the report said. Advertisement Ways to strip citizenship Four ways were identified in the report for when individuals can be stripped of their citizenship on security grounds. Nearly 80 per cent of countries have rules covering at least one of these situations. In 132 countries around the world, and two thirds of European states, citizenship can be removed for acts that threaten national security, such as treason, espionage, trying to overthrow a government or terrorism. These laws exist in Belgium, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Turkey and the UK. In 89 countries, however, this rule concerns only people who were naturalised, not those who acquired citizenship by birth. Another reason that can lead to the stripping of citizenship is when naturalised individuals have committed serious criminal offences, which typically involves having been sentenced to imprisonment for a certain period. These rules exist in 79 countries but only a few in Europe. In 70 countries, citizenship can be removed if someone was found to have served in a foreign army and in 18 countries this measure concerns only people who acquired citizenship by naturalisation. In Europe, 40 percent of countries – including France, Germany, Greece, the Netherlands, Estonia, Turkey, Belarus and Bosnia Herzegovina – can remove citizenship under certain conditions if naturalised nationals were found to have served in a foreign army. Latvia, one of the countries that can revoke citizenship for such reasons, changed the law in 2022 to allow its citizens to work with the Ukrainian military forces. Citizenship can also be removed for providing non-military services to another state, such as being elected in a public office, working for certain agencies or even taking up a role in the civil service. Such rules exist in 75 countries around the world, including European countries such as France, Greece and Turkey. Advertisement Naturalised citizens more at risk Luuk van der Baaren, co-author of the report, said 'these developments indeed raise an important question as to what extent citizenship is still a secure legal status'. The data also shows that 'a large share of the citizenship stripping provisions are discriminatory in nature, as they only apply to specific groups, particularly naturalised citizens'. This is to prevent a person from becoming stateless, but it means that 'citizens by birth have a secure legal status, while those who acquired citizenship later in life do not,' he added. Losing citizenship may not only affect the individual's security and opportunities for work, but also that of dependants, the report warned. In 40 percent of countries removing someone's citizenship can extend to their children. Other ways of losing citizenship There are other ways, intentional or not, that people can lose their citizenship, according to the report. The most common, is to have it withdrawn because it was acquired in a fraudulent way. Such rules exist in 157 countries. Some 156 states also have rules on how to voluntarily renounce citizenship, usually with provisions to ensure that a person does not end up stateless. In 56 countries, people can lose their citizenship if they acquire another nationality, and in 55 this may occur by simply residing abroad. Under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 'everyone has the right to a nationality', but four million people in the world are stateless 'because their citizenship remains denied or unrecognised,' the report continued. On the other hand, 35 countries do not allow people to renounce citizenship, or they make it impossible in practice. Advertisement Unequal rights The report also looked at ways to acquire citizenship and concluded different countries offered 'highly unequal pathways'. Countries make vastly different demands on applicants when it comes to criteria such as economic self-sufficiency, civic or cultural integration, language or citizenship tests, and renunciation of other citizenships. And on residency requirements, the Americas and Western Europe have the more inclusive measures. Citizenship in European countries is also regulated via the European Convention on Nationality, under which the residence requirement cannot exceed 10 years. But in 15 countries the wait is longer than 10 years: Equatorial Guinea (40 years), United Arab Emirates (30), Bahrain (25), Qatar (25), Bhutan (20), Brunei (20), Eritrea (20), Oman (20), Chad (15), Gambia (15), Nigeria (15), Rwanda (15), Sierra Leone (15), St. Kitts and Nevis (14), and India (11).
Digital Trends
30-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Digital Trends
20 years later, War of the Worlds is a bracing look at a world in terror
The years after the September 11th terrorist attack were strange and difficult for basically every American. The sense of safety that so many had grown accustomed to was utterly decimated, and the country reacted to the revelation of its own vulnerability in a way that left lasting scars. In the world of feature filmmaking, dozens of directors attempted 9/11 allegories, and most of them failed to meet the moment. Steven Spielberg, though, took his time and then made not one but two movies that seemed to address the tragedy, albeit obliquely. 2004's Munich is a story about cycles of violence. Set in the aftermath of the Munich Olympics, it follows Mossad agents as they assassinate the men whom Israel holds responsible for the crime. Recommended Videos The next year, Spielberg directed Tom Cruise in War of the Worlds, a movie that is ostensibly about an alien invasion but one that nonetheless evokes the feelings many Americans felt in the wake of 9/11. War of the Worlds is about domesticity disrupted In addition to being an apparent 9/11 allegory, War of the Worlds is also one of the last movies that asked Cruise to play a regular person. Here, he's playing a dockworker who struggles to build a positive relationship with his two children. During one fateful weekend visit, though, the kids find themselves stuck with dad as aliens invade and threaten to destroy the planet. Crucially, the movie has almost no interest in what the aliens want or in humanity's attempts to stop them. This is not Independence Day. It's a movie about one regular guy working as hard as possible to make sure his family survives. War of the Worlds is not a perfect movie, but the immediacy of its first act, in particular, is unmatched in Spielberg's career. The moments after the alien's initial attack are frenetic, terrifying, and a reminder of just how quickly the normal course of a day can be turned on its head by external events. All they can do is turn and run, and Cruise spends the entire movie trying to find a safe place for his family to land. To his immense credit, Cruise plays the balance between his own personal panic and his desire to put on a brave face for his kids beautifully. This version of Cruise is not an action star, and there are no hidden talents buried beneath this dockworker. He's just a regular guy trying to survive, in basically the last moment in Cruise's career where he could play a regular guy. Spielberg weaponizes his skill for spectacle The list of directors who are better at conveying a sense of spectacle than Steven Spielberg is vanishingly short. Usually, Spielberg's skill for wonder and awe is used to amaze both his characters and the audience. When you see the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park or the spaceship in Close Encounters of the Third Kind, you're as amazed as the characters at just how beautiful and real they look. In War of the Worlds, Spielberg uses his skill for spectacle and immediacy to more nefarious ends. During the film's most memorable sequence, we see an entire neighborhood reduced to rubble after a plane crashed right in the middle of it. It's a credit to the film's production designer that the set is as impressive as it is, but Spielberg understands almost intuitively how to make this scene of disaster feel personal and immediate, craning out from Cruise and his family until we can see a broader view of the wreckage. That's just one example of how Spielberg uses his intuitive understanding of how to make things feel big and important to make the devastation in War of the Worlds feel so profound. He's turned his ability to awe you into a weapon. It's that sense of scale, combined with his total focus on one family's experience of this world-shattering event, that makes War of the Worlds into one of the definitive movies of the 9/11 era. This is not a movie about politics, and it's not even clear whether 9/11 has happened in this world. Instead, War of the Worlds is a movie about what it feels like to have your life upended. To be living one way one minute and be fighting for nothing more than your own survival the next. It's a film about the feeling of realizing that life is more fragile than you thought. The movie's ending may feel, at least to some, to be a cheat, and it's certainly the most hopeful part of the movie. Crucially, it's also a return to domesticity and a reminder that, when all else fails, all we really have are the people we've chosen to make family with. Stream War of the Worlds on Paramount+.
Mint
13-06-2025
- Politics
- Mint
Donald Trump wants to deport foreign students merely for what they say
'EVERY TIME I find one of these lunatics I take away their visa." That is how Marco Rubio, the secretary of state, last month described the Trump administration's push to deport foreign university students who had participated in campus activism. Mr Rubio initially suggested that his department had cancelled at least 300 visas. That number increasingly looks out of date as the deportation campaign has spread beyond elite east-coast schools and for conduct beyond protest and speech. More than 100 students in California alone have had their visas yanked—some of them seemingly for infractions as minor as a speeding ticket. The crackdown combines two of President Donald Trump's campaign promises: to carry out mass deportations and to expel students involved in campus protests that erupted in response to Israel's invasion of Gaza, following the brutal attacks of October 7th 2023. Deportation is no longer just a way to reduce the number of illegal immigrants in America and deter more from coming, but a means of punishing those whose beliefs differ from the federal government's. The arrests and visa revocations have created widespread anxiety on campuses already reeling from upheavals. Lawsuits ask whether the government can deport non-citizens in good legal standing merely for their speech. How is the State Department deciding who to target? Officials are reportedly using AI to scour students' social-media accounts for evidence that they have participated in pro-Palestinian campus protests. Betar, an activist group, says it is feeding names to the government. (It is unclear whether immigration officials are working off of such tips.) Locating these students is fairly easy. 'International students are the most tracked of all non-immigrants," explains Fanta Aw of NAFSA, an association that promotes student exchanges. A system created in the 1990s that keeps tabs on foreign students was expanded following the September 11th attacks. When university administrators check the system, called SEVIS, they find that students' permissions have been terminated by the government without warning, leaving them vulnerable to deportation. An early and prominent case involving the arrest of Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian graduate student at Columbia University, illuminates the legal arguments the Trump administration is making as it tries to deport protesters. On March 8th Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents hustled Mr Khalil away from his very pregnant wife while saying that his visa had been revoked. (According to court documents they seemed to be unaware he had a green card, which confers permanent residency.) He remains detained in Louisiana while a petition challenging his imprisonment moves through federal court in New Jersey, where he was previously held. On Truth Social, Mr Trump alleged that Mr Khalil is a 'Radical Foreign Pro-Hamas Student" and that student protesters are 'terrorist sympathisers". Mr Khalil's allies see such presidential targeting of individuals as a throwback to dark chapters of American history. 'We haven't seen a threat to free speech like this since the Red Scare" of the 1950s, says Esha Bhandari, one of his lawyers. The Trump administration is targeting a broad group of foreigners by making aggressive use of a 1952 immigration law. Under it, the secretary of state can decree someone 'inadmissible" whose presence in the country 'would have potentially serious adverse foreign-policy consequences". Further, the government suggests that the courts can't second-guess what constitutes a serious foreign-policy consequence, nor ask for specific evidence of wrongdoing. They are arguing that 'it's a blank cheque to the administration to declare anything contrary to our foreign policy, and then revoke people's visas and deport them", says David Cole, who argued a similar case on behalf of Palestinian protesters that was litigated over two decades. The law has rarely been used in this way. In a court brief, 150 legal scholars reported that the foreign-policy provision had been invoked in just 15 deportation cases since 1990, resulting in only four removals. If its use of the 1952 law fails, the government has also argued that Mr Khalil is deportable for withholding information on his green-card application. For precedent, the government's lawyers cite several cases from the 1950s when the perceived threats from communism often won out over First Amendment concerns. Yet since then, in large part as a reaction to the trampling of rights during that Red Scare, the courts and Congress have strengthened free-speech protections for non-citizens. The same law Mr Rubio is invoking to deport Mr Khalil was amended in 1990 to prevent deportation based on an immigrant's beliefs, unless the secretary of state tells Congress that there is a compelling reason for deportation. It is unclear whether Mr Rubio has done so, though he asserts that Mr Khalil's presence undermines America's policy of 'combating antisemitism across the globe". In a report explaining these changes at the time, lawmakers expressed hope that 'this authority would be used sparingly and not merely because there is a likelihood that an alien will make critical remarks about the United States or its policies". The First Amendment makes no distinction between non-citizens and citizens. But the Supreme Court has tended to defer to the executive where immigration is concerned. 'For generations, there have been people on both the left and the right who have argued that the ordinary rules that apply in constitutional law generally don't apply when immigration policies are at stake", says Adam Cox of New York University. For example, during Mr Trump's first term the court upheld the third iteration of the administration's travel ban on people from several muslim-majority countries, despite the ban's constitutionally questionable discrimination. There are also doubts about whether the foreign-policy provision is too vague to be enforced. How can an immigrant stay on the right side of the law when they don't know what might get them deported? In a soap-opera-style twist, that was the conclusion of Mr Trump's late sister, Maryanne Trump Barry, then a district-court judge, when she ruled in 1996 that the measure was void because of its vagueness. Her decision was overturned for procedural reasons. But if Mr Khalil's case makes it to the Supreme Court, the justices could rely on her reasoning and avoid confronting the question of whether executive power over immigration takes precedence over the free-speech rights of non-citizens. While Mr Khalil's litigation plays out, Mr Rubio will no doubt continue revoking student visas. Ms Aw says she expects to see students decide that studying in America isn't worth the stress. Stay on top of American politics with The US in brief, our daily newsletter with fast analysis of the most important political news, and Checks and Balance, a weekly note from our Lexington columnist that examines the state of American democracy and the issues that matter to voters.
India Gazette
03-06-2025
- Politics
- India Gazette
"Terrorism a global threat, many attacks linked to Pakistan": Ambassador Sujan Chinoy in Liberia
Monrovia [Liberia], June 3 (ANI): Highlighting the global nature of terrorism, former Ambassador Sujan Chinoy reiterated India's long-standing concerns over cross-border terrorism and stressed Pakistan's role in harbouring terror groups. 'Terrorism is indeed a global threat today. India has long suffered from cross-border terrorism. For a very long time, it was understood that terrorism in South Asia is essentially a problem between India and Pakistan. But post September 11th, 2001, it became very clear to the world that all the terrorist attacks that have taken place have some linkage with Pakistan. It harbours a huge number of terrorist organisations...' Chinoy said. He further underscored India's consistent position, stating, '...For a very long time, it was understood that terrorism in South Asia is a matter between India and Pakistan. But post September 11, 2001, it became clear to the world that all the terrorist attacks that have taken place have some linkage with Pakistan. India has always been talking about it...' Chinoy's remarks came during his address in Monrovia, Liberia, as part of ongoing diplomatic outreach focused on security cooperation and counter-terrorism. Alongside him, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader SS Ahluwalia emphasised that terrorism is a global concern, not just India's problem. 'It is not a matter of concern for India only. Our visionary PM, Narendra Modi, visualises that in isolation, one nation cannot fight or finish this monster. Today, if it is eliminated in India, then tomorrow, it will appear in another country, because their (Pakistan's) economy runs on this, and they extract money out of it. Today, if you find any terrorist activity in the world, its investigation will lead to Pakistan,' Ahluwalia said. BJP MP Atul Garg addressed Pakistan's internal political instability, stating, 'Every PM of Pakistan is either jailed... Continuously, the GDP of Pakistan is decreasing... Pakistan has nothing to lose.' BJP MP Bansuri Swaraj called for global unity against terrorism, stressing, 'Terrorism is not a problem of any region... At this time, the whole world should stand together against terrorism. The terrorist attack in Pahalgam on April 22 was a murder of humanity.' The delegation, led by Shiv Sena MP Shrikant Shinde, includes BJP MPs Bansuri Swaraj, Atul Garg, Manan Kumar Mishra, Indian Union Muslim League's ET Mohammed Basheer, Biju Janata Dal's Sasmit Patra, BJP leader SS Ahluwalia, and former Ambassador Sujan Chinoy. This group aims to brief international partners on India's response to the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack and its broader fight against cross-border terrorism while engaging with leaders in key countries. This multi-party delegation, consisting of seven groups led by one MP each, has been initiated to counter global misinformation and highlight India's zero-tolerance policy on terrorism. (ANI)
