标签： Asia

The Trump administration has officially launched a premium immigration visa program requiring a minimum investment of one million dollars, branded as the “Trump Gold Card.” Formally initiated through an executive order signed on September 19th, the program was personally announced by President Donald Trump at a White House roundtable and promoted on his Truth Social account as “SO EXCITING.

Prospective applicants must first submit a non-refundable $15,000 processing fee to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to trigger an expedited eligibility review. The program’s website promises residency “in record time,” claiming processing can be completed in a matter of weeks. Upon approval, a mandatory $1 million “gift payment” is required as evidence the individual will “substantially benefit the United States.”

The program extends beyond individuals to corporate sponsorship. Companies can pay $2 million per employee to sponsor foreign workers, with a unique provision allowing the transfer of this payment to a new employee’s application without an additional fee if sponsorship ceases.

While similar to a Green Card in granting lawful permanent residence and a pathway to citizenship, the website compares its legal classification to EB-1 and EB-2 visas, noting final determination is “subject to availability” by DHS. All gift payments are directed to the Department of Commerce, not DHS or the State Department.

Additional financial burdens include the same $1 million payment and $15,000 fee applied to each family member of the primary applicant. The website also mentions potential additional fees from the State Department without clarifying if they are one-time or recurring. All cardholders will be subject to U.S. worldwide income tax, with a forthcoming “Trump Platinum Card” advertised to provide tax benefits on foreign income.

This initiative marks a stark contrast to the administration’s broader immigration policy, which has included revoking at least 85,000 visas in under a year and restricting pathways for poorer demographics. The website notes that Gold Card status can be revoked for national security or criminal risks.

The program has drawn immediate criticism, notably from U.S. Senator Dick Durbin, who condemned it as “an illegal pay-to-play scheme that undermines our values and rewards wealth over hard work, talent, and a love for America.” He accused the president of “rolling out the welcome mat for Russian oligarchs and cartel bosses” instead of creating fair policies.

A deepening humanitarian and political crisis is unfolding within Britain’s prison system as eight detainees affiliated with the proscribed group Palestine Action continue a prolonged hunger strike, now exceeding 40 days for some. The situation has escalated into a direct confrontation between the UK government and advocates for the prisoners, casting a harsh spotlight on Justice Secretary David Lammy.

The core of the controversy stems from Lammy’s claimed ignorance of the coordinated protest. Shahmina Alam, sister of hospitalized hunger striker Kamran Ahmed, publicly challenged the minister at a Christmas event, presenting him with a letter she asserts was previously sent to his office detailing the strike and its demands. Lammy’s response—’I didn’t know anything about this’—has been met with accusations of incompetence or dishonesty.

With five strikers already hospitalized suffering severe weight loss and dangerous ketone levels, medical concerns are acute. Lawyers for the prisoners have issued a dire warning to the Ministry of Justice (MOJ), stating there is a ‘real and increasingly likely potential that young British citizens will die in prison, having never even been convicted of an offence.’

The political pressure on Lammy is intensifying. Labour MP John McDonnell raised a point of order in the House of Commons, condemning the government’s silence on his own correspondence as ‘totally unacceptable.’ Meanwhile, the MOJ maintains its standard procedures are being followed, with a spokesperson stating, ‘The deputy prime minister is being kept informed of the situation,’ and that prisoner wellbeing is continually assessed.

Families report being systematically kept in the dark regarding their relatives’ medical conditions, citing horrendous experiences with prison staff who offer no support or updates. The MOJ justifies this by citing legal restrictions on sharing healthcare information with ‘unverified callers.’ This standoff, pitting prisoner welfare and transparency against official procedure and the enforcement of proscription orders, presents a significant challenge for the new Justice Secretary.

A landmark investigation has exposed how Britain’s expansive citizenship revocation authorities are systematically endangering approximately nine million residents, predominantly from Muslim backgrounds, creating what researchers term a “racialized hierarchy of belonging.” The collaborative study by Runnymede Trust and Reprieve reveals that 13% of the UK population—disproportionately those with heritage links to South Asia, Africa, and the Middle East—face legal vulnerability to having their citizenship revoked at the Home Secretary’s discretion.

The analysis demonstrates staggering racial disparities: while merely one in twenty white Britons faces citizenship deprivation risk, three in five people of color inhabit this precarious status. Individuals with familial connections to Pakistan, Bangladesh, Somalia, Nigeria, and North African nations emerge as particularly vulnerable groups within this framework.

Legal provisions enable the government to strip citizenship based on presumed eligibility for alternative nationality—even when individuals have never resided in or identified with those countries. Since 2010, over 200 individuals have lost citizenship under “conducive to the public good” provisions, with overwhelming majority being Muslims. The 2022 legislation further intensified these powers by permitting revocation without notification.

Campaigners draw direct parallels to the Windrush scandal, noting identical institutional failings and absence of effective safeguards. Maya Foa of Reprieve warned that “nine million people whose rights could be taken away by the next home secretary have every reason to be worried,” while Runnymede Trust CEO Shabna Begum condemned the “chilling undercurrent of citizenship stripping” disproportionately targeting Muslim communities.

The report traces how counterterrorism legislation has transformed citizenship revocation from exceptional wartime measure to routinely deployed tool. Even judicial victories prove hollow—a 2025 statute ensures citizens remain stripped during government appeals that can span years, regardless of court rulings.

Researchers document multiple cases of erroneous deprivation resulting in unlawful statelessness, with the Shamima Begum case representing the most prominent example where Bangladesh publicly denied her eligibility. The commission chaired by former Irish Lord Chief Justice Declan Morgan recently concluded that deprivation frequently proceeds based merely on presumed nationality rather than established facts.

With conservative politicians advocating expanded deportation schemes, organizations demand immediate moratorium on citizenship stripping, abolition of Section 40(2) of the British Nationality Act, and restoration of citizenship to all previously deprived under these powers.

The British government confronts escalating demands to address the humanitarian and legal crisis surrounding its nationals arbitrarily detained in northeastern Syria. This complex issue involves both citizens stripped of their citizenship and numerous young children trapped in detention facilities controlled by Kurdish authorities.

Recent protests outside London’s Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office highlighted the growing frustration among families of detainees. Sally Lane, mother of imprisoned British-Canadian Jack Letts, articulated the urgent need for government action, stating: “I want to force the government to tell us what their plan is. They’ve fudged the issue for so long and had such a wide range of excuses.”

The protests coincide with the publication of a landmark report by the Independent Commission on UK Counter-Terrorism Law, Policy and Practice. Led by former Northern Ireland Lord Chief Justice Sir Declan Morgan, the three-year review condemned Britain’s approach as increasingly untenable and violating international human rights obligations. The report documented “inhuman, dangerous, and degrading” conditions in camps like Al-Hol and Al-Roj, where many women and children face coercion, trafficking, and exploitation.

Statistical analysis reveals Britain’s outlier status among nations. According to Rights and Security International data, the UK has repatriated merely four women and 21 children from Syria. Current estimates suggest between 55-72 British nationals remain detained, including approximately 10 men, up to 20 women, and around 40 children—mostly under age 10.

Former UN Special Rapporteur Fionnuala Ni Aolain emphasized Britain’s exceptional position: “The UK is a complete outlier, and actually with very little reasonable basis for that, given we’ve seen successful repatriation in other countries and recidivism is really low. On every single measure, the UK is out of step with its partners.”

The geopolitical landscape has shifted dramatically with the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s government and conclusion of Syria’s civil war. The transitional government under Ahmed al-Sharaa has signed agreements with Kurdish leaders to transfer camp responsibilities to Damascus within six months. This development, coupled with accelerated Iraqi repatriations and a UN conference urging member states to act, creates renewed urgency for resolution.

Security experts warn of continuing risks, including potential IS revival in unstable regions and the transformation of detention facilities into incubators for future insurgency. Human rights organizations have compared the lack of due process and arbitrary detention conditions to those at Guantanamo Bay.

The controversy surrounding citizenship-stripping powers remains particularly contentious. Critics argue this policy damages Britain’s international standing by transferring responsibility to other nations through sometimes tenuous citizenship claims, effectively creating a system of “medieval exile and banishment.”

Despite the change in government from Conservative to Labour in July 2024, policy continuity has largely prevailed. Both administrations have defended citizenship-stripping on national security grounds while maintaining ad hoc, sporadic repatriation practices.

For families like the Letts, who haven’t had contact with their son since January 2020, the situation remains desperately personal. John Letts summarized the fundamental demand: “He needs to see people. He needs medical help. We need to know he’s alive. Let’s talk to him. Is that so much to ask as a father after nine years?”