oh, and yes, i remember the idea about tradeable citizenship (TC). that idea works for me to the extent i understand it, and if not mistaken, anyone can live anywhere as long as they can pay for the going price.
details, please, and simple bullet points will do to start the discussion.
hk has effectively the most tradeable residency right in the universe, open to all, and hkd 6.5 mil investment in one's own abode over a 7 years span does the job, paperwork is effectively nil as far as bureaucratic technicalities can go.
however, how does TC work in the case of tibet, vs nz, vs anywhere else a homeland is claimed by anyone qualified or not? and who says what borders homeland should have? please illuminate by example.
then we can get into the nitty gritty of application and exceptions, grandfathering or grandmothering.
i am still waiting for your suggestion on universal rule of homeland settlement and a/c clearing, and implementation regulations as they pertain to specific and unique one-off cases.
the issues for you to consider includes but are not limited to the following:
- year of settlement by visitors (those not of origination in the locale and their offspring)
- exceptions to take a/c of method of visitor settlement (paid for on the cheap under duress, conquest and genocide, whatever else)
- exceptions to take a/c of duration of settlement
- exceptions to take a/c of visitor to homeland ratio
- etc
nothing detailed, just some broad stroke comments and thick brush notations will do for starters, so that we are on the same page and know the topic of discussion.
no idea?
if so, that would be settlement of the issue, in a manner of speaking, until such time you do have a clue.
cheers, tj |
