The Joy of Trump
Monday, October 31, 2016
Monday, June 20, 2016
Sunday, June 19, 2016
Wax sculpture of Hitler on his knees sells for $17.2million
Consider a diamond-encrusted
platinum skull by artist Damien Hirst has been sold to an investment
group for the asking price of $100 million, a spokeswoman for Hirst's
London gallery White Cube said on Thursday.
The skull, cast from a 35-year-old 18th century European man but retaining the original teeth, is coated with 8,601 diamonds, including a large pink diamond worth more than four million pounds in the centre of its forehead.
The skull, cast from a 35-year-old 18th century European man but retaining the original teeth, is coated with 8,601 diamonds, including a large pink diamond worth more than four million pounds in the centre of its forehead.
Maurizio Cattelan's wax and resin sculpture of a diminutive Hitler on his knees is titled 'Him'
- The artwork, completed in 2001, fetched $17.2million at Christie's auction
- Cattelan, known as the art world's resident prankster, has created sculptures of historical figures like JFK and Pope John Paul II
- His fully-functional toilet cast in solid gold will be installed in Guggenheim bathroom this summer
A
statue of Hitler on his knees was auctioned for a record-setting $17.2
million on Sunday, the most for any work by Italian art world prankster
Maurizio Cattelan.
The
wax and resin statue titled Him, called 'one of the most shocking and
disquieting works of art to have emerged in the post-war era', had been
expected to fetch between $10million and $15million at the Christie's
auction in New York's Rockefeller Plaza.
The
previous record for a work by 55-year-old Cattelan was $7.9 million for
a statue featuring a wax statue of himself peeping out of a hole in the
floor.
The artwork 'Him', depicting Hitler on his
knees in prayer, fetched $17.2million today at a Christie's auction in
midtown New York. It is artist Maurizio Cattelan's most expensive work
thus far
Him, which
was completed in 2001, disrupts the viewer's expectations with its
size. From behind, the statue appears to be that of a young boy praying,
while the all too recognizable face creates an unsettling contrast
Him, which was completed in 2001, disrupts the viewer's expectations with its size.
From
behind, the statue appears to be that of a young boy praying, while the
all too recognizable face creates an unsettling contrast.
Cattelan,
who considered destroying the piece of work several times, said:
'Hitler is pure fear; it’s an image of terrible pain. It even hurts to
pronounce his name. And yet that name has conquered my memory, it lives
in my head, even if it remains taboo.
'Hitler
is everywhere, haunting the specter of history; and yet he is
unmentionable, irreproducible, wrapped in a blanket of silence.
'I’m
not trying to offend anyone. I don’t want to raise a new conflict or
create some publicity; I would just like that image to become a
territory for negotiation or a test for our psychoses.’
The
statue sparked controversy in 2012 when it was installed in a former
Warsaw ghetto, where thousands of Jews died under Nazi rule.
Some
accused the work of belittling the suffering of Jewish victims, while
others saw the piece as a reflection on evil and its many forms.
Maurizio Cattelan (pictured) is known as the art world's resident prankster and provocateur
The
controversial artist is known for taking on big names such as John F.
Kennedy, cast in one sculpture lying in a coffin, while the famous La
Nona Ora (The Ninth Hour) shows Pope John Paul II being crushed by a
meteor.
But Cattelan shrugs off claims he is a provocateur, saying: 'I actually think that reality is far more provocative than my art.
'I just take it; I’m always borrowing pieces — crumbs really — of everyday reality.
'If you think my work is provocative, it means that reality is extremely provocative, and we just don’t react to it.
'Maybe we no longer pay attention to the way we live in the world… We are anesthetized.’
Cattelan
declared he would retire after his landmark 2011 retrospective at the
Guggenheim Museum in New York, where his work was strung from the
ceiling into the atrium, leaving the galleries empty.
The
55-year-old made headline news in late April after it was revealed a
new site-specific work would be installed at the museum.
Titled
America, Cattelan will be installing a fully functional toilet, cast in
solid gold, at the Guggenheim for the use of its patrons.
He is known for taking
on big names such as John F. Kennedy and Pope John Paul II. Pictured,
his Guggenheim retrospective in 2011, which left the galleries empty as
his work hung from the ceiling
Civilian access to military-style weapons.
Sales spike but Colt is in bankruptcy???
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Robert Lewis <buddhha4@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 4:48 AM
Subject: Grenade Launcher?
To: Robert Lewis <buddhha4@gmail.com>
From: Robert Lewis <buddhha4@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 4:48 AM
Subject: Grenade Launcher?
To: Robert Lewis <buddhha4@gmail.com>
Wait for one of these home grown crazies to get some g's
Javier Zarracina/Vox
Don't tread on my rights...
The AR-15, a trademark owned by Colt but applied to wide range of near-identical guns from different manufacturers, is a civilian version of the M16, a weapon designed for military combat in Vietnam. It's very difficult for civilians to own an M16. The gun can shoot up to three bullets in a single burst, and older versions were fully automatic, meaning they keep firing as long as you hold the trigger. As such, the gun is strictly regulated by the National Firearms Act, the 1934 law that restricted the possession of machine guns. The AR-15, though, is semiautomatic — you have to pull the trigger for each bullet — and so has no such restrictions.
Since 2009, gun manufacturers have preferred to call these guns “modern sporting rifles,” a name that conjures up hunters in the woods rather than soldiers shooting at the enemy. But even enthusiasts agree that the AR-15 doesn’t shine while hunting. It’s better at killing people than it is animals.
So there’s another name for AR-15s and guns like them:
assault weapons. While exact definitions of the term vary, it typically
means a military-style weapon adapted for civilian use, with
modifications that can make it more lethal. This graphic shows some of
those modifications:
And since the federal assault weapons ban expired in 2004, AR-15-style rifles and similar guns, including the gun that Orlando shooter Omar Mateen used, have become astronomically popular.
As Congress debated the assault weapons ban in 1993, production of assault rifles soared, according to a 2004 report from the University of Pennsylvania:
Even while the ban was in effect, barring the production
of certain kinds of assault weapons, gun manufacturers got around it by
creating new “postban” models of guns that went by different names.
Olympic Arms began selling a version known as the PCR — “politically correct rifle” — that lacked a threaded barrel and a bayonet lug, two of the features Congress objected to. Colt stopped making the AR-15, but it made the Colt Match Target, which looks pretty similar.
This has happened at the state level, too: California has an assault weapons ban, but entrepreneurial gun manufacturers have found ways to modify the AR-15 to get around it.
The 1994 assault weapons ban banned the AR-15 by name, including identical versions made by other manufacturers. So as calls to ban the AR-15 intensified this week, some gun defenders argued that the Sig Sauer MCX that Mateen used wasn't an AR-15 at all due to slight technical differences. (Orlando’s police chief, John Mina, initially described the weapon as an AR-15. Reviews of the gun from before the Orlando shooting often compare it to AR-15-style weapons but also highlight the ways in which it differs from standard AR-15s, such as firing several calibers of bullets.)
That's unlikely to convince anyone whose real concern is civilian access to military-style weapons. But when it comes to writing precise legislation, those differences matter, which is one reason the movement to protect guns has seized on them.
But sales didn't really take off for four more years, until President Barack Obama was elected in 2008, when gun sales of all kinds began to soar.
Smith and Wesson manufactured nearly 10 times as many M+P15s, its AR-15 equivalent, in 2008 than in 2006. Their output tripled again in the next year. By December 2012, when the AR-15 became the focus of a debate after the Newtown shootings, there were about 3.8 million AR-15s in circulation in the US, Slate’s Justin Peters estimated.
Then, for a brief moment after the Newtown shootings, additional gun control in the US seemed possible. Obama called for new gun control legislation, including a renewal of the federal assault weapons ban. Connecticut, New York, and Maryland expanded their own state bans.
And sales of AR-15s went nuts. Retail stores doubled or tripled prices in the first months of 2013, finding that desperate gun owners, worried the weapons would be banned, would pay.
The more popular the guns get, the harder it becomes to actually ban them. There are so many AR-15s now owned in the US that gun aficionados argued in summer 2013 that the market was saturated. That means that if a new assault weapons ban, like the 1994 version, grandfathered in guns that people already owned, there would still be millions of AR-15s available in the US. A buyback could get some of those guns off the street, but it would also be expensive.
Still, AR-15 owners are still outnumbered. Assault rifles are a tiny slice of the more than 300 million guns in circulation in the US. The majority of Americans don’t own guns at all, and the majority of Americans favor stricter gun laws.
But the rush to buy AR-15s every time a politician mentions gun control illustrates why the National Rifle Association has so much political clout. Its 5 million members care deeply about their guns, a combination of campaign money, political power, and a single focus that gun control supporters don't have.
Assault rifles aren’t the only weapon of choice in mass
shootings: The Virginia Tech and Charleston mass shootings were tragic
and traumatizing, and the shooters in each only used handguns. But they
get special attention both because those weapons formerly were banned
and because the number of mass shootings appears to have risen since the
assault weapons ban expired.
Between 1984 and 1993, according to the 2004 University of Pennsylvania study on the assault weapons ban, there were 15 mass shootings that killed at least six people or wounded at least 12. Assault weapons were used in only six of these shootings, but those shootings killed and injured more people than the other nine combined.
Mother Jones, which tracks mass shootings that meet specific criteria, counts 46 mass shootings since 2004, when the assault weapons ban expired. Of those 46 shootings, 14 featured assault rifles, including Newtown, Aurora, and San Bernardino.
And assault rifles appear to be becoming more popular among mass shooters. In 2015, five of the seven mass shootings Mother Jones logged featured a shooter carrying an assault rifle.
In the wake of Newtown, a few states did tighten their gun laws, including bans on AR-15s. The Supreme Court might soon have to weigh in on whether those bans are constitutional.
A case against Maryland’s assault weapons ban is making its way through the courts, and in the most recent development, the Fourth Circuit sent that case, Kolbe v. Hogan, back for stricter review at the trial court level. Two conservative justices seemed very skeptical that banning the AR-15 was constitutional.
The reason the Fourth Circuit judges cited was from District of Columbia v. Heller — the 2008 decision that found a constitutional right to own a handgun for self-defense — which included a line saying that, constitutionally, “dangerous and unusual” weapons could still be prohibited.
The AR-15 is certainly dangerous. But it isn’t necessarily unusual. If there were nearly 4 million AR-15s in the hands of American gun owners in 2012, before the Sandy Hook-induced panic, there are almost certainly more now. The specter of a federal ban could make them more popular still.
So the AR-15 is caught in a cycle. The more it’s used in high-profile mass shooting cases, the more people want to ban it. The more people want to ban it, the more AR-15s are sold. And the more AR-15s are sold, the harder it becomes to create a ban that would be able to stop the next tragedy.
Correction: A previous version of this article misstated the year the National Firearms Act was passed.
Javier Zarracina/VoxThe AR-15 is a military-style rifle that civilians can use
Don't tread on my rights...The AR-15, a trademark owned by Colt but applied to wide range of near-identical guns from different manufacturers, is a civilian version of the M16, a weapon designed for military combat in Vietnam. It's very difficult for civilians to own an M16. The gun can shoot up to three bullets in a single burst, and older versions were fully automatic, meaning they keep firing as long as you hold the trigger. As such, the gun is strictly regulated by the National Firearms Act, the 1934 law that restricted the possession of machine guns. The AR-15, though, is semiautomatic — you have to pull the trigger for each bullet — and so has no such restrictions.
Since 2009, gun manufacturers have preferred to call these guns “modern sporting rifles,” a name that conjures up hunters in the woods rather than soldiers shooting at the enemy. But even enthusiasts agree that the AR-15 doesn’t shine while hunting. It’s better at killing people than it is animals.
And since the federal assault weapons ban expired in 2004, AR-15-style rifles and similar guns, including the gun that Orlando shooter Omar Mateen used, have become astronomically popular.
The more you try to ban the AR-15, the more popular it gets
The federal assault weapons ban, which went into effect in 1994, banned the sale of AR-15-style guns and high-capacity magazines. It was the first example of a phenomenon that’s driven the AR-15’s popularity for two decades: The more gun owners fear their guns will be taken away, the more assault rifles they want to own.As Congress debated the assault weapons ban in 1993, production of assault rifles soared, according to a 2004 report from the University of Pennsylvania:
Even while the ban was in effect, barring the production
of certain kinds of assault weapons, gun manufacturers got around it by
creating new “postban” models of guns that went by different names. Olympic Arms began selling a version known as the PCR — “politically correct rifle” — that lacked a threaded barrel and a bayonet lug, two of the features Congress objected to. Colt stopped making the AR-15, but it made the Colt Match Target, which looks pretty similar.
This has happened at the state level, too: California has an assault weapons ban, but entrepreneurial gun manufacturers have found ways to modify the AR-15 to get around it.
The 1994 assault weapons ban banned the AR-15 by name, including identical versions made by other manufacturers. So as calls to ban the AR-15 intensified this week, some gun defenders argued that the Sig Sauer MCX that Mateen used wasn't an AR-15 at all due to slight technical differences. (Orlando’s police chief, John Mina, initially described the weapon as an AR-15. Reviews of the gun from before the Orlando shooting often compare it to AR-15-style weapons but also highlight the ways in which it differs from standard AR-15s, such as firing several calibers of bullets.)
That's unlikely to convince anyone whose real concern is civilian access to military-style weapons. But when it comes to writing precise legislation, those differences matter, which is one reason the movement to protect guns has seized on them.
Obama’s election made the AR-15 and other assault weapons a lot more popular
Gun manufacturers started making more AR-15s again after the assault weapons ban expired. They became more popular as part of a trend for military-style weapons, in part because they’re endlessly customizable.But sales didn't really take off for four more years, until President Barack Obama was elected in 2008, when gun sales of all kinds began to soar.
Smith and Wesson manufactured nearly 10 times as many M+P15s, its AR-15 equivalent, in 2008 than in 2006. Their output tripled again in the next year. By December 2012, when the AR-15 became the focus of a debate after the Newtown shootings, there were about 3.8 million AR-15s in circulation in the US, Slate’s Justin Peters estimated.
Then, for a brief moment after the Newtown shootings, additional gun control in the US seemed possible. Obama called for new gun control legislation, including a renewal of the federal assault weapons ban. Connecticut, New York, and Maryland expanded their own state bans.
And sales of AR-15s went nuts. Retail stores doubled or tripled prices in the first months of 2013, finding that desperate gun owners, worried the weapons would be banned, would pay.
The more popular the guns get, the harder it becomes to actually ban them. There are so many AR-15s now owned in the US that gun aficionados argued in summer 2013 that the market was saturated. That means that if a new assault weapons ban, like the 1994 version, grandfathered in guns that people already owned, there would still be millions of AR-15s available in the US. A buyback could get some of those guns off the street, but it would also be expensive.
Still, AR-15 owners are still outnumbered. Assault rifles are a tiny slice of the more than 300 million guns in circulation in the US. The majority of Americans don’t own guns at all, and the majority of Americans favor stricter gun laws.
But the rush to buy AR-15s every time a politician mentions gun control illustrates why the National Rifle Association has so much political clout. Its 5 million members care deeply about their guns, a combination of campaign money, political power, and a single focus that gun control supporters don't have.
The other hurdle to banning AR-15s: the Supreme Court
Between 1984 and 1993, according to the 2004 University of Pennsylvania study on the assault weapons ban, there were 15 mass shootings that killed at least six people or wounded at least 12. Assault weapons were used in only six of these shootings, but those shootings killed and injured more people than the other nine combined.
Mother Jones, which tracks mass shootings that meet specific criteria, counts 46 mass shootings since 2004, when the assault weapons ban expired. Of those 46 shootings, 14 featured assault rifles, including Newtown, Aurora, and San Bernardino.
And assault rifles appear to be becoming more popular among mass shooters. In 2015, five of the seven mass shootings Mother Jones logged featured a shooter carrying an assault rifle.
In the wake of Newtown, a few states did tighten their gun laws, including bans on AR-15s. The Supreme Court might soon have to weigh in on whether those bans are constitutional.
A case against Maryland’s assault weapons ban is making its way through the courts, and in the most recent development, the Fourth Circuit sent that case, Kolbe v. Hogan, back for stricter review at the trial court level. Two conservative justices seemed very skeptical that banning the AR-15 was constitutional.
The reason the Fourth Circuit judges cited was from District of Columbia v. Heller — the 2008 decision that found a constitutional right to own a handgun for self-defense — which included a line saying that, constitutionally, “dangerous and unusual” weapons could still be prohibited.
The AR-15 is certainly dangerous. But it isn’t necessarily unusual. If there were nearly 4 million AR-15s in the hands of American gun owners in 2012, before the Sandy Hook-induced panic, there are almost certainly more now. The specter of a federal ban could make them more popular still.
So the AR-15 is caught in a cycle. The more it’s used in high-profile mass shooting cases, the more people want to ban it. The more people want to ban it, the more AR-15s are sold. And the more AR-15s are sold, the harder it becomes to create a ban that would be able to stop the next tragedy.
Correction: A previous version of this article misstated the year the National Firearms Act was passed.
-
- It took a newspaper columnist 7 minutes to buy an AR-15
- Donald Trump just outlined a plan to profit personally off a Trump administration
Friday, March 11, 2016
"What’s going on in Syria is collective, multilateral madness"
x 
Middle East Eye @MiddleEastEye 24 Nov 2015
"What’s going on in Syria is collective, multilateral madness," writes @DavidaHearst http://ow.ly/V1Bkl pic.twitter.com/WsrRGTHjfe
Middle East Eye @MiddleEastEye 24 Nov 2015 "What’s going on in Syria is collective, multilateral madness," writes @DavidaHearst http://ow.ly/V1Bkl pic.twitter.com/WsrRGTHjfe
Thursday, March 3, 2016
“Frankfurt School” philosopher Herbert Marcuse, the godfather of cultural Marxism
Keynesian Claptrap—— Why The State Is Waging War On Savers And Cash
by Claudio Grass •
Photo via cronachelodigiane.net
“Frankfurt School” philosopher Herbert Marcuse, the godfather of cultural Marxism
Link: http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/keynesian-claptrap-why-the-state-is-waging-war-on-savers-and-cash/
Wednesday, March 2, 2016
New Canadians no longer have to intend to live in Canada
Buy a house in Vancouver and return to China to make more money...this isn't going to help address the housing affordiblity crisis in Vancouver ....
PUBLISHED : Wednesday, 02 March, 2016, 5:26am
Dragon dancers perform during a Chinese New Year Parade through Vancouver’s Chinatown on February 16. Photo: Xinhu
But the amendments also carry huge implications for anyone who simply heads back to their country of origin after obtaining a Canadian passport. This modern phenomenon of reverse migration is one that has been thoroughly embraced by tens of thousands Hong Kong and mainland Chinese immigrants alike, to varying degrees of legality.
The changes, for the most part, put things back the way they were in 2014.
The proposed amendments to the Citizenship Act, unveiled last Thursday, remove the requirement that new citizens must intend to live in Canada after obtaining citizenship. According to the government, the intent-to-reside provision “created concern among some new Canadians, who feared their citizenship could be revoked in the future if they moved outside of Canada”.
[Previously,] citizenship was harder to obtain and easier to lose; now it’s easier to obtain and much harder to lose
Immigration lawyer Richard Kurland
The proposals also shorten the period of physical presence required of new citizens to three years (1,095 days) out of the previous five, compared to four years out of six under the Tories; allow periods of non-permanent presence in Canada – for instance, time spent as a student, temporary worker or even a visitor – to be credited among those three years (albeit up to a maximum of one years’ credit, with each full day of non-permanent residency counting as half a day); and shrink the age band for applicants who must pass language tests, from 18-54, compared to 14-64 previously.
Canadian income-tax-filing requirements have been retained, although reduced to three years out of the five years prior to seeking citizenship, in keeping with the new residency rule. In a further supplemental move required as a result of the new non-permanent-resident time credit, a rule requiring 183 days of presence in Canada in four out of six years is also scrapped.
“The government is keeping its commitment to repeal certain provisions of the Citizenship Act, including those that led to different treatment for dual citizens. Canadian citizens are equal under the law. Whether they were born in Canada or were naturalised in Canada or hold a dual citizenship,” Immigration Minister John McCallum said in a statement.
Removing the intent-to-reside-in-Canada rule represents a major switch in thinking, although actual enforcement of rules about intent has been patchy at best. For instance, Quebec’s Immigrant Investor Programme for millionaire permanent residents requires a stated intent to live in the French-speaking province - but that hasn’t stopped about 90 per cent of QIIP applicants from moving elsewhere in Canada (mainly Vancouver). It’s hard to prove false intent at the time a residency statement is made, and the Canadian Charter guarantees freedom of movement.
Vancouver immigration lawyer Richard Kurland said he supported the changes, which represented “a total reversal” from the approach of the Tories, under whom “citizenship was harder to obtain and easier to lose; now it’s easier to obtain and much harder to lose”.
The removal of the intent-to-reside provision was “hands down, slam-dunk” the most significant change, Kurland said. He said the previous “exposure to revocation” of citizenship under the intent rule would have “hung over [new citizens’] heads, forever”.
This article is from the South China Morning Post - International edition
PUBLISHED : Wednesday, 02 March, 2016, 5:26am
UPDATED : Wednesday, 02 March, 2016, 3:24pm
Citizenship revamp: New Canadians no longer have to intend to live in Canada
Trudeau
government’s ‘total reversal’ of Tory policy also slashes residency
requirements and gives credit for time spent as visitors or students
BIO
Ian
Young is the SCMP's former International Editor. A journalist for more
than 20 years, he worked for Australian newspapers and the London
Evening Standard before arriving in Hong Kong in 1997. There he won or
shared awards for excellence in investigative reporting and human rights
reporting, and the HK News Awards Scoop of the Year. He moved to
Canada with his wife in 2010 and is now the SCMP's Vancouver
correspondent.
Dragon dancers perform during a Chinese New Year Parade through Vancouver’s Chinatown on February 16. Photo: Xinhu
When Canada’s new Liberal government last week unveiled its sweeping rollback of the ousted Conservatives’ citizenship crackdown, much of the focus was on the decision to remove terrorism as grounds for revoking dual citizenship.
But the amendments also carry huge implications for anyone who simply heads back to their country of origin after obtaining a Canadian passport. This modern phenomenon of reverse migration is one that has been thoroughly embraced by tens of thousands Hong Kong and mainland Chinese immigrants alike, to varying degrees of legality.
The changes, for the most part, put things back the way they were in 2014.
Canada's Immigration Minister John McCallum says dual citizens should be treated no differently than native-born sole-citizenship Canadians. Photo: Reuters
The proposed amendments to the Citizenship Act, unveiled last Thursday, remove the requirement that new citizens must intend to live in Canada after obtaining citizenship. According to the government, the intent-to-reside provision “created concern among some new Canadians, who feared their citizenship could be revoked in the future if they moved outside of Canada”.
[Previously,] citizenship was harder to obtain and easier to lose; now it’s easier to obtain and much harder to lose
Immigration lawyer Richard Kurland
The proposals also shorten the period of physical presence required of new citizens to three years (1,095 days) out of the previous five, compared to four years out of six under the Tories; allow periods of non-permanent presence in Canada – for instance, time spent as a student, temporary worker or even a visitor – to be credited among those three years (albeit up to a maximum of one years’ credit, with each full day of non-permanent residency counting as half a day); and shrink the age band for applicants who must pass language tests, from 18-54, compared to 14-64 previously.
Canadian income-tax-filing requirements have been retained, although reduced to three years out of the five years prior to seeking citizenship, in keeping with the new residency rule. In a further supplemental move required as a result of the new non-permanent-resident time credit, a rule requiring 183 days of presence in Canada in four out of six years is also scrapped.
Vancouver immigration lawyer Richard Kurland
“The government is keeping its commitment to repeal certain provisions of the Citizenship Act, including those that led to different treatment for dual citizens. Canadian citizens are equal under the law. Whether they were born in Canada or were naturalised in Canada or hold a dual citizenship,” Immigration Minister John McCallum said in a statement.
Removing the intent-to-reside-in-Canada rule represents a major switch in thinking, although actual enforcement of rules about intent has been patchy at best. For instance, Quebec’s Immigrant Investor Programme for millionaire permanent residents requires a stated intent to live in the French-speaking province - but that hasn’t stopped about 90 per cent of QIIP applicants from moving elsewhere in Canada (mainly Vancouver). It’s hard to prove false intent at the time a residency statement is made, and the Canadian Charter guarantees freedom of movement.
Vancouver immigration lawyer Richard Kurland said he supported the changes, which represented “a total reversal” from the approach of the Tories, under whom “citizenship was harder to obtain and easier to lose; now it’s easier to obtain and much harder to lose”.
The removal of the intent-to-reside provision was “hands down, slam-dunk” the most significant change, Kurland said. He said the previous “exposure to revocation” of citizenship under the intent rule would have “hung over [new citizens’] heads, forever”.
A Canadian passport has become “easier to obtain and much harder to lose” under new rules, according to immigration lawyer Richard Kurland.
“It’s the difference between sleeping soundly … [versus] knowing that at some day in the future, over decades to come, the state may intrude on your life and decide that you did not have the intent to be Canadian,” he said.
Kurland had lobbied the previous Tory government of prime minister Stephen Harper to introduce the pre-citizenship tax-filing requirement, and he said he was happy to see it retained under the Liberals’ Justin Trudeau as a “non-partisan” policy element.
There are estimated to be almost 300,000 existing Canadian citizens in Hong Kong, most of them returnee immigrants whose decision to head back to the SAR is perfectly legal and will remain so under the new rules.
Yet illegally evading Canada’s pre-citizenship residency requirements has become an industry that caters to some sectors of the wealthy Chinese community. The biggest immigration fraud in Canadian history involved Xun “Sunny” Wang, a Vancouver-area immigration consultant who specialised in helping rich Chinese fake their presence in Canada as permanent residents, in order to later obtain citizenship. Wang’s clients were actually living and working China, but had him doctor their passports and forge various documents to create the illusion that they were in Canada instead. Jailed in October for seven years, Wang helped cheat immigration rules for at least 1,200 clients, who paid him C$10million in the process.
*The Hongcouver blog is devoted to the hybrid culture of its namesake cities: Hong Kong and Vancouver. All story ideas and comments are welcome. Connect with me by email ian.young@scmp.com or on Twitter, @ianjamesyoung70 .
Source: http://www.scmp.com/news/world/article/1919566/citizenship-revamp-new-canadians-no-longer-have-intend-live-canada?utm_source=&utm_medium=&utm_campaign=SCMPSocialNewsfeed
Related topics
Hongcouver
Related articles
Vancouver’s new property player has deep pockets - and a rich Chinese communist pedigree
24 Feb 2016 - 3:30am
‘Stand Up To China’ campaign pits Vancouver activism against Beijing’s oil ambitions
18 Feb 2016 - 6:13am
Broker behind Vancouver real estate ‘crowdfunding’ website says it was a mistake
12 Feb 2016 - 8:55am
Studying ‘foreign ownership’ in Vancouver won’t explain why this mossy hovel costs C$2.4million
3 Feb 2016 - 5:57am
‘Crowdfunders’ are targeting Vancouver real estate, tapping investors in Chinese community
“It’s the difference between sleeping soundly … [versus] knowing that at some day in the future, over decades to come, the state may intrude on your life and decide that you did not have the intent to be Canadian,” he said.
Kurland had lobbied the previous Tory government of prime minister Stephen Harper to introduce the pre-citizenship tax-filing requirement, and he said he was happy to see it retained under the Liberals’ Justin Trudeau as a “non-partisan” policy element.
There are estimated to be almost 300,000 existing Canadian citizens in Hong Kong, most of them returnee immigrants whose decision to head back to the SAR is perfectly legal and will remain so under the new rules.
Yet illegally evading Canada’s pre-citizenship residency requirements has become an industry that caters to some sectors of the wealthy Chinese community. The biggest immigration fraud in Canadian history involved Xun “Sunny” Wang, a Vancouver-area immigration consultant who specialised in helping rich Chinese fake their presence in Canada as permanent residents, in order to later obtain citizenship. Wang’s clients were actually living and working China, but had him doctor their passports and forge various documents to create the illusion that they were in Canada instead. Jailed in October for seven years, Wang helped cheat immigration rules for at least 1,200 clients, who paid him C$10million in the process.
*The Hongcouver blog is devoted to the hybrid culture of its namesake cities: Hong Kong and Vancouver. All story ideas and comments are welcome. Connect with me by email ian.young@scmp.com or on Twitter, @ianjamesyoung70 .
Source: http://www.scmp.com/news/world/article/1919566/citizenship-revamp-new-canadians-no-longer-have-intend-live-canada?utm_source=&utm_medium=&utm_campaign=SCMPSocialNewsfeed
Related topics
Hongcouver
Related articles
Vancouver’s new property player has deep pockets - and a rich Chinese communist pedigree
24 Feb 2016 - 3:30am
‘Stand Up To China’ campaign pits Vancouver activism against Beijing’s oil ambitions
18 Feb 2016 - 6:13am
Broker behind Vancouver real estate ‘crowdfunding’ website says it was a mistake
12 Feb 2016 - 8:55am
Studying ‘foreign ownership’ in Vancouver won’t explain why this mossy hovel costs C$2.4million
3 Feb 2016 - 5:57am
‘Crowdfunders’ are targeting Vancouver real estate, tapping investors in Chinese community
21 Jan 2016 - 6:32am
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)