Comment up for discussion
Published:
January 31, 2014 at 1:20am
Posted by Canon:
A case of discrimination has now been created with the negotiations agreed yesterday with the European Commission. Why does a foreign person married to a Maltese have to wait five years to apply for citizenship?
The one year residency should apply in these cases as well.
Some will say that such cases are different from the scheme. It will only be a matter of time that it is challenged in the European Court of Human Rights.
9 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
There, Canon just said it.
This little tweak changes NOTHING. It just adds a few more trips for the newly-minted Maltese billionaires.
Yes, it has become a two-tier system where the mega-rich obtain citizenship after one year, while the others have to wait for 5 years.
Definitely a strong case to be taken to the European Court of Human Rights.
The PN should start a ‘Marry a Foreigner’ drive for votes.
I don’t think they are so stupid . They must have something up their sleeve. And I bloody well hope they do.
Will the new citizenship grant the right to vote even if one is not a full time resident on the island? I believe that citizens must have been on the island for at least 6 months as a full time resident to be listed on the electoral register.
Will this gold-digger give free right to vote to everyone who purchases the citizenship, just come to the island and pick up the voting document and vote in a matter of 24 hours before the vote opens?
I don’t agree with your comment and statement. The aim of the law as it is, is to try to prevent convenience marriages for citizenship purposes.
After all, similar schemes exist in EU, as the EU commissioner said yesterday. So why a case against Malta should be instituted?
[Daphne – False argument again: if your premiss is that Malta should not have citizens of convenience, then this applies equally to those who buy their citizenship and those who marry purely for the purpose of acquiring a Maltese passport. There no ‘citizenship of convenience’ greater than a bought one.]
You hit the mark there, Canon. And we have to expect that the candidates will also skip the long wait between requesting an appointment with the Citizenship Directorate and having their ID card issued. Outrageous.
It would appear that marriage is not looked upon as an investment. At least not anymore, as witnesses the introduction of divorce.
And whilst one cannot lawfully discriminate on certain given grounds, such as race, gender or religious belief, there is nothing at law to prevent discrimination on the basis of wealth.
So, perfectly legitimate for a law to say one only qualifies for X something if he pays Y amount.
So hard luck to the unfortunate penniless immigrants even though they might otherwise be so much more deserving in terms of talent and calibre.
Of course the issue of immorality remains, but who cares about morals any more in these enlightened days of the information age.
There is nothing to it. Things of this sort happen only when Labour is sitting pretty in power.
We know it so well; it has all been thoroughly scrutinised, debated, discussed that any further comment will be superfluous.
With one exception LABOUR as it was, as is and forever shall be.