Stateless overnight': Authoritarian crackdown strips 42,000 Kuwaitis of nationality

Nearly 42,000 Kuwaitis have been stripped of their nationality in just six months and in defiance of international law. Launched under the increasingly authoritarian rule of Kuwait's new monarch, Emir Mishal Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah, the policy claims to target foreigners who illegally obtained Kuwaiti citizenship – but naturalised citizens and political opponents are getting caught up in the campaign.
Kuwait has taken a distinctly more authoritarian direction since the accession of the new monarch, 84-year-old Emir Mishal Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah, in December 2023.

Asserting that he would not allow democracy “to be exploited to destroy the state”, the emir suspended parliament on May 10 of last year and announced a revision of the constitution with the aim of ending political gridlock, which he claims has paralysed Kuwait for decades.
Several people who criticised this initiative were arrested, and members of parliament were prosecuted in a wave of repression denounced by Amnesty International.

Nearly 42,000 Kuwaiti nationals have been stripped of their nationality since September, a radical policy shift for the Gulf country. Revocation of citizenship had previously been used in Kuwait, as in other Gulf monarchies, only sporadically and following court rulings, sometimes against political opponents or those accused of terrorism like the detainees held at the US base in Guantanamo, Cuba.
The enactment in December of a legislative amendment authorising forfeiture of citizenship for “‘moral turpitude or dishonesty, or for actions aimed at threatening state security, including criticism of the emir or religious figures”, has broadened the scope for the revocation of citizenship.

A Supreme Committee chaired by the minister of the interior examines cases to establish who has a legal claim to Kuwaiti citizenship. And every week, the names of those stripped of nationality are made public – with anxious Kuwaitis poring over the lists looking for their names or the names of relatives, the Financial Times reported.

Kuwaiti wives
No fewer than 464 citizens were stripped of their nationality in a single day on March 6, including 12 people accused of “illegally” holding dual nationality and 451 said to be guilty of “forgery and fraud”, the Middle East news site Al-Monitor reported.
Kuwait does not allow dual nationality, so those who acquire Kuwaiti citizenship must give up their original nationality.
And these naturalised Kuwaitis have been particularly targeted, notably women who were naturalised after marrying a Kuwaiti. Stripped of their Kuwaiti citizenship, they find themselves stateless and without basic rights – for example, they no longer have access to state health care nor can they renew their children's enrolment in state schools.

Non-Kuwaitis cannot access the generous social welfare benefits offered by this wealthy petro-monarchy, nor can they own land or hold a majority stake in a company. Some who have lost their nationality have reported having their driving licenses invalidated, or found their access to their bank accounts restricted.

“The speed of these measures and the scale of the number of people affected is unprecedented in Kuwait. The government is proceeding in a haphazard manner,” says Claire Beaugrand, a researcher for the National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS), at Paris Dauphine University-PSL.
Faced with public alarm over the denaturalisation campaign, the government in December tried to moderate its position concerning spouses naturalised after marriage, promising to restore their pensions and social benefits.

‘Stateless overnight’
All levels of society are affected by the new rules on nationality, according to a report in the Financial Times. The British daily describes the story of Faisal, a Kuwaiti businessman, who has been in despair since having his passport confiscated at the airport as he was about to travel. No reason was given, he says. But his father, a naturalised Kuwaiti, was also stripped of his nationality. “They made me stateless overnight,” Faisal said. “Today, all I can think about is leaving and settling in Dubai.”

Another potential victim of these revocations is the political opposition. “Rumour has it in Kuwait that the threat of administrative proceedings against ‘fraudulent’ naturalisations is aimed at intimidating people from tribal backgrounds who formed the breeding ground of the parliamentary opposition, considered by the authorities to be ‘disloyal’,” says Beaugrand.

The revocations are a reminder that there is another category of stateless Kuwaitis, the Bidoon, many of whom are descendants of nomadic tribes. Bidoon, literally “without nationality”, have never been able to prove they are Kuwati nationals and have remained in legal limbo for several generations.

Their applications for citizenship are processed by a specific institution that considers them neither citizens nor legal foreign residents. Because of this unsettled status, they are deprived of the social, political and economic rights accorded to the rest of the population. There are an estimated 100,000 Bidoon in Kuwait.

Xenophobic rhetoric
To justify its campaign against foreign nationals, the government at times uses xenophobic rhetoric mirroring that used by the far right in the US and Europe – notably, warning that foreign criminals are taking advantage of the generous welfare benefits meant for Kuwaitis and should be punished.

Kuwait has been “hijacked” by other nationalities, Interior Minister Sheikh Fahad al-Yousef said on Kuwait’s Alrai TV in March. “I will not mention these nationalities. There are nationalities that are foreign to Kuwaiti society – its social life, language, character and social relations.” Yousef, a member of the royal family, cited the danger of undermining the “authentic nature” of Kuwaiti society and generating “lineage confusion”.
The government has even opened a “hotline” to encourage Kuwaitis to report dual nationals and to denounce those they suspect of procuring false documents in order to obtain nationality.

Kuwait's lagging economy
The government also makes an economic argument to justify its campaign that is sometimes echoed in the media.
“The government and the press describe these measures as a way of reducing state expenditure by reducing the number of citizens benefiting from the generous advantages offered by the Kuwaiti welfare state,” says Beaugrand.
Faced with economic stagnation, the Kuwaiti authorities are worried that they are lagging behind their Gulf neighbours, who are successfully diversifying their economies away from dependence on oil.
“When he came to power, the emir promised to launch economic reforms to boost growth,” notes Beaugrand. But ever since he dissolved parliament, despite promising reforms “we've mostly seen denaturalisations”.

How can we help you?
Please email us to info@samigration.com
Whatsapp message us on: +27 82 373 8415

Where are you now?
Check our website : www.samigration.com

Please rate us by clinking on this links :
Sa Migration Visas
https://g.page/SAMigration?gm

South African Citizenship Law: Court Rules in Favor of Stateless Child Born to Refugee Parents

Introduction to Legal Principles
The South African legal system, particularly the South African Citizenship Act of 1995, outlines how citizenship is acquired. A key principle is that a child born in South Africa can become a citizen if one of their parents is a South African citizen at the time of birth. However, changes to the law have created complexities for children born to non-citizen parents. This article explores a recent court case involving a child born to refugee parents, highlighting the legal challenges and the court’s decision to ensure the child’s right to citizenship.

Legal Framework for Citizenship
• Citizenship by Birth: Before 2013, a child born in South Africa could become a citizen if one of their parents had permanent residence. After 2013, citizenship is granted if one parent is a South African citizen at the time of birth.
• Statelessness: The South African Citizenship Act aims to prevent statelessness by providing citizenship to children born in the country who do not have another nationality.
• Refugee Status: Refugees in South Africa face unique challenges in obtaining citizenship for their children, as they cannot easily access services from their country of origin without risking their refugee status.
Case Law: Facts and Court Decision

Background
The case involves a family of refugees from Rwanda living in South Africa. The parents, who are legally recognized refugees, have two daughters. The eldest daughter was born before the 2013 changes to the Citizenship Act and automatically became a South African citizen. However, the youngest daughter, born in 2015, did not qualify for automatic citizenship due to the new requirements.

The Challenge
• Statelessness: The youngest child was stateless because she did not qualify for South African citizenship and could not easily obtain Rwandan citizenship due to her parents’ refugee status.
• Application for Citizenship: The parents applied for South African citizenship for their youngest child, but the application was refused by the Department of Home Affairs, citing that granting citizenship would be contrary to the Citizenship Act.

Court Decision
The High Court of South Africa reviewed the decision and ruled in favour of the applicants. The court declared the Department’s refusal unlawful and ordered that the child be recognized as a South African citizen by birth under Section 2(2) of the Citizenship Act. This section ensures that a child born in South Africa who does not have the citizenship of any other country can become a South African citizen if their birth is registered in accordance with South African law.

Key Points of the Decision
• Prevention of Statelessness: The court emphasized the importance of preventing statelessness, especially for children, as it is constitutionally directed that every child should have a nationality from birth.
• Best Interests of the Child: The court prioritized the best interests of the child, noting that procedural technicalities should not override justice.
• Refugee Status Considerations: The court acknowledged the difficulties faced by refugees in accessing services from their country of origin, which would imperil their status and that of their family.

Conclusion
The court’s decision highlights the importance of ensuring that children have a nationality from birth, as mandated by constitutional principles. It also underscores the challenges faced by refugee families in navigating citizenship laws. The ruling provides a significant precedent for similar cases, emphasizing the need to balance legal technicalities with the best interests of the child and the prevention of statelessness.

How can we help you?
Please email us to info@samigration.com
Whatsapp message us on: +27 82 373 8415

Where are you now?
Check our website : www.samigration.com

Please rate us by clinking on this links :
Sa Migration Visas
https://g.page/SAMigration?gm

Court ruling highlights citizen issues for stateless children in South Africa

The high court in Pretoria, in addressing the issue of a child who had been left stateless, ordered Home Affairs to within three months register her as a citizen of this country
Amendments to the Citizenship Act came under the judicial spotlight after one child born from parents who are legally in the country as refugees after they had fled Rwanda is a citizen of South Africa, while her younger sister, born after amendments, is left stateless.
The youngest child, born in 2015 after a change in the law, does not automatically qualify for citizenship as her elder sister did. In terms of the new law, she can only apply for citizenship here - with no guarantees that she will receive it - after she has turned 18.

Her parents, who have been living in South Africa now for several years, turned to the Gauteng High Court, Pretoria out of desperation as their youngest child has now been left stateless. Home Affairs, which has followed the letter of the law, refused to grant her citizenship.
Judge Anthony Millar, in the opening of his judgment in which he ruled in favour of the parents, remarked that “it is a foundational pillar of our law that every child has the right to a name and nationality from birth".

Prior to January 1, 2013, when the applicant's eldest child was born; in terms of the Citizenship Act, a person born here was a South African citizen by birth if one of the parents were legally here.
Since both parents are refugees here and not citizens, the youngest child finds herself in a situation where she is without South African citizenship conferred on her automatically and to obtain citizenship upon application, would have to wait until she was a major (18) to do so.
Judge Millar questioned that while the status of the parents is that of refugees, and of their eldest child is that of a citizen of the Republic, what then is to become of the youngest child since she does not automatically qualify for South African citizenship, nor that of Rwanda.

Home affairs suggested that she applied for Rwandan citizenship or simply waited until she turned 18 to apply for South African citizenship.
But the judge pointed out that as refugees from Rwanda, the parents can hardly ask that country to grant their daughter citizenship. The choice is an impossible one for the parents, the judge remarked.

He added that because of the change to the Citizenship Act, she is not a citizen in the country of her birth. Only after she turns 18 will she have to apply to be recognised as a refugee in her own name and only thereafter, if her application is granted, will she be able to apply for citizenship of South Africa by way of naturalisation.
“This proposed course of action will only give her a right to apply, and not a vested right as guaranteed by the Constitution. This only serves to perpetuate her current predicament, and she would still have no nationality and remain stateless.”
Judge Millar said in cases such as the present one, “it must not be forgotten that procedure is, but a handmaiden of justice and the cause of justice can never be allowed to be thwarted by any procedural technicalities".

“It is constitutionally directed that a child is to have a nationality from birth, and it follows axiomatically that it is in the best interests of the child that this is so. In the circumstances, the child is to be declared a citizen of the Republic of South Africa,” Judge Millar said.
He ordered Home Affairs to, within three months, register the child accordingly.

How can we help you?
Please email us to info@samigration.com
Whatsapp message us on: +27 82 373 8415

Where are you now?
Check our website : www.samigration.com

Please rate us by clinking on this links :
Sa Migration Visas
https://g.page/SAMigration?gm

Can an Asylum Seeker Change to a Mainstream Visa AND Keep both Statuses – Overview?

Yes, based on the Immigration Act of 2002, the Refugees Act of 1998, and key legal precedents, an asylum seeker can transition to a mainstream visa (such as a spouse visa) and may, in some cases, hold both statuses. This position was confirmed in the Constitutional Court case of Ahmed v Minister of Home Affairs and further supported by other court decisions.

1. Legal Framework: Immigration Act & Refugees Act
To fully understand why this is possible, we need to examine the key legal provisions in both acts:
🔹 The Refugees Act, 1998 (As Amended)
• The Refugees Act does not prohibit an asylum seeker from applying for a visa under the Immigration Act.
• Section 27 of the Act grants recognized refugees permanent residence after five years, but it does not restrict asylum seekers from seeking other legal pathways.
• Section 22 allows asylum seekers to remain in the country legally while their applications are processed, but it does not prohibit them from applying for other visas.
🔹 The Immigration Act, 2002
• The Immigration Act governs mainstream visas, such as spouse, work, and study visas.
• The Act does not contain any express prohibition preventing an asylum seeker from applying for a mainstream visa.
Prior to legal challenges, Home Affairs routinely rejected applications for mainstream visas from asylum seekers, arguing that asylum seekers were only allowed to remain in South Africa under refugee law. However, the courts have overturned this interpretation.

2.Key Case Law: Ahmed v Minister of Home Affairs
Case Citation: Ahmed v Minister of Home Affairs [2018] ZACC 39
🔹 Facts of the Case
• Ahmed was an asylum seeker in South Africa.
• He attempted to apply for a visa under the Immigration Act but was denied by the Department of Home Affairs (DHA), which argued that asylum seekers must remain within the refugee system and cannot apply for mainstream visas.
• Ahmed challenged this decision in the Constitutional Court.
🔹 The Constitutional Court’s Ruling
The Constitutional Court ruled in Ahmed’s favor, confirming that:
✅ Asylum seekers have the right to apply for mainstream visas under the Immigration Act.
✅ DHA’s policy of rejecting asylum seekers’ applications for mainstream visas was unconstitutional.
✅ There is no legal basis to prohibit an asylum seeker from obtaining a spouse visa, work visa, or study visa.
🔹 Reasoning Behind the Judgment
• The court emphasized that the Immigration Act and the Refugees Act must be read together in a manner that aligns with the constitutional right to dignity and fair administrative justice.
• Nothing in the law prevents asylum seekers from applying for mainstream visas.
• The ruling stopped Home Affairs from blocking asylum seekers from transitioning to other legal statuses.

3 .Additional Supporting Case Law
🔹 Ruta v Minister of Home Affairs [2019] ZACC 36
• The Constitutional Court reaffirmed the right of asylum seekers to seek alternative legal pathways.
• It confirmed that a refugee or asylum seeker should not be unfairly locked into the asylum system if they have a valid reason to transition to a mainstream visa.
🔹 Tewolde v Minister of Home Affairs [2019]
• The court confirmed that asylum seekers can apply for a spouse or work visa if they meet the requirements of the Immigration Act.
• This ruling emphasized that fair administrative action is required when processing applications.

4 .Can an Asylum Seeker Hold Both Asylum Status and a Mainstream Visa?
Yes, based on legal precedents, it is possible in certain situations.
🔹 Key Considerations
1. An asylum seeker can apply for a mainstream visa while still holding an asylum permit.

2. Once a mainstream visa is granted, the asylum permit may no longer be necessary.

3. If the asylum seeker still fears persecution, they can maintain their asylum status while holding a mainstream visa.

4. However, if they voluntarily renounce their asylum claim, they will fall under the Immigration Act rather than the Refugees Act.
Ahmed v Minister of Home Affairs and Ruta v Minister of Home Affairs support the principle that the two legal frameworks are not mutually exclusive, and asylum seekers should be allowed to transition legally.

5 .Why Home Affairs Cannot Block This Process
Despite these legal rulings, Home Affairs has historically attempted to block asylum seekers from obtaining mainstream visas. However, the courts have ruled against this for the following reasons:
🔹 Constitutional Principles
• Right to Dignity & Family Life: Preventing an asylum seeker from applying for a spouse visa violates the right to family unity.
• Fair Administrative Justice: Blanket refusals by Home Affairs violate Section 33 of the Constitution, which guarantees fair administrative action.
• Freedom of Movement & Choice: A person should not be forced to remain in the asylum system if they qualify for another visa category.
🔹 Legal Clarity from the Courts
• The courts have repeatedly ruled that Home Affairs cannot enforce a policy that is not supported by legislation.
• If an asylum seeker meets the requirements of a mainstream visa (e.g., a spouse visa), Home Affairs must process the application fairly.

6 .Conclusion: An Asylum Seeker Can Change to a Mainstream Visa
Based on the Immigration Act, the Refugees Act, and legal precedents, it is clearly possible for an asylum seeker to:
✅ Apply for a mainstream visa such as a spouse, work, or study visa.
✅ Transition out of the asylum system if they qualify for another visa.
✅ Hold both asylum and mainstream status in some cases (e.g., if their asylum claim is still valid).
The Ahmed case and similar rulings confirm that Home Affairs cannot block these applications. Asylum seekers are entitled to fair and lawful immigration pathways like any other foreign national in South Africa.

How can we help you?
Please email us to info@samigration.com
Whatsapp message us on: +27 82 373 8415

Where are you now?
Check our website : www.samigration.com

Please rate us by clinking on this links :
Sa Migration Visas
https://g.page/SAMigration?gm

Cape Town man's 20-year battle for identity document highlights Home Affairs challenges

A former prisoner who has turned his life around for the better and who has never owned an identity document (ID) is at his wits end after waiting for more than 20 years for the matter to be resolved.
In a last attempt for success, Dawood Abrahams, 41, approached the Cape Argus on Tuesday after visiting several Home Affairs offices in Cape Town, together with his wife, Aqeela Linnert.

The couple from Sea Winds are married according to Islamic law.
Abrahams said due to being incarcerated, he was never able to obtain an ID and claimed he made various applications over the years and even did DNA tests to prove that he was a South African citizen.
He said he submitted fingerprints on numerous occasions, including the identification documents belonging to his parents.
“When I was a small child, my birth certificate was lost,” he said.

“I became involved with the wrong things in life and I was naughty and I was sent to prison.”
In his twenties, Abrahams said he tried to obtain an ID but ended-up behind bars again before he could collect his new document.
“I made an application while being around 27 or 28 years old and my parents took me to the Wynberg branch.
“I was imprisoned again and when I came out after about three years I decided to find out what happened with my ID.
“But I was told that they destroyed the ID and that I need to make a new application.”

In 2016, he was referred to Cape Town’s branch where he said he made another application and even provided a sample of his blood for DNA testing.
“I was referred to Immigration and told to take forms home with me and to provide blood DNA to show that they are my parents.”
But he claims he was once again left disappointed after he was told he could not be in possession of state documentation at home.
“Those documents were destroyed and I was told I had to make a new application and this person helped me by giving me a new birth certificate.
“But I have been waiting since then for a new ID.”

His wife said it made their lives hard financially as he was unable to find employment.
“He is a father and he is unable to work,” she said.
“We asked for the information on the system to be provided to us because we want to know why it is taking so long.
“We told them we are going to go to the newspaper.”

Siyabulela Qoza of the Department of Home Affairs said they would have to query internally before providing comment publicly on the case and asked for personal information of Abrahams to be provided in order to determine what happened.

How can we help you?
Please email us to info@samigration.com
Whatsapp message us on: +27 82 373 8415

Where are you now?
Check our website : www.samigration.com

Please rate us by clinking on this links :
Sa Migration Visas
https://g.page/SAMigration?gm