Year in review and look ahead

Time for my looking back piece, even if a bit self-indulgent.

Most of my time was spent on an analysis of the 2025 election results from a diversity analysis with Jerome Black, highlighting how representation of visible minorities had increased while that of women and Indigenous had stalled. A second area of major work was following and participating in C-3 citizenship discussions and debates. Annual updates on public service diversity and birth tourism, and setting the baseline for appointments that will be made by PM Carney.

2026 will continue with my various annual updates. Jerome Black and I have an analysis in train on the intersectionality of women and visible minority candidate in competitive ridings. I will be analysing the impact of C-3 in relation to age, gender, and country of origin and comparing that with expatriate voting data, given that the latter has grown significantly and the number of expatriate votes cast exceeds the winning margin in a number of ridings. No doubt other issues of interest will emerge.

Lots to keep me busy and engaged, along with maintaining my blog.

Best wishes for the holidays, whichever ones you celebrate.

Print below by my late father.

Citizenship 

Citations

Immigration – Citations

Multiculturalism 

Diversity and Employment Equity

Before the cuts: a bureaucracy baseline from an employment equity lens (Hill Times)

Political Representation 

The diversity of candidates and MPs stalled for some groups in this election (Policy Options, The Hill Times, with Jerome H. Black)

Citations

A Conspicuous Gap May Undermine Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Plan

Interesting argument:

In asking the Supreme Court to let him do away with birthright citizenship, President Trump has urged the justices to restore “the original meaning” of the 14th Amendment.

What the amendment meant when it was ratified in 1868, Mr. Trump’s lawyers said in a brief, was that “children of temporary visitors and illegal aliens are not U.S. citizens by birth.”

The court will hear arguments in the spring to decide whether that is right. There are many tools for assessing the original meaning of a constitutional provision, including the congressional and public debates that surrounded its adoption.

But one important tool has been overlooked in determining the meaning of this amendment: the actions that were taken — and not taken — to challenge the qualifications of members of Congress, who must be citizens, around the time the amendment was ratified.

A new study to be published next month in The Georgetown Law Journal Online fills that gap. It examined the backgrounds of the 584 members who served in Congress from 1865 to 1871 and found good reason to think that more than a dozen of them might not have been citizens under Mr. Trump’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment. But no one thought to file a challenge to their qualifications.

That is, said Amanda Frost, a law professor at the University of Virginia and an author of the study, the constitutional equivalent of the dog that did not bark, which provided a crucial clue in a Sherlock Holmes story.

The study raises new questions about Mr. Trump’s legal battle to narrow protections under the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause, which says: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”

The Constitution requires members of the House of Representatives to have been citizens for at least seven years, and senators for at least nine. It adds that each House “shall be the judge” of its members’ qualifications.

“If there had been an original understanding that tracked the Trump administration’s executive order,” Professor Frost said, “at least some of these people would have been challenged.”…

Source: A Conspicuous Gap May Undermine Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Plan

USA: The next step was citizenship. Then these immigrants were pulled out of line.

Cruelty personnified:

For immigrants, naturalization ceremonies represent the culmination of their yearslong effort to earn citizenship. In front of a federal judge, permanent residents raise their right hands, repeat the Oath of Allegiance to their new country, and usually wave a small American flag with pride once the judge confirms their citizenship.

On Dec. 4, inside Boston’s Faneuil Hall – a historic site where revolutionaries like Samuel Adams fostered the idea of American freedom – one such event took a turn. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services officers denied entry to several people who showed up for their naturalization ceremony, according to Project Citizenship, a nonprofit providing legal support for those seeking citizenship. Each of these individuals was from one of 19 countries the Trump administration identified as high-security risks under a Dec. 2 Department of Homeland Security memo, which mandated the immediate pausing and review of immigration applications from those countries, including Haiti, Afghanistan, and Venezuela.

What happened at the Boston ceremony is part of a tightening of the naturalization process throughout the country. In late November, New York state Attorney General Letitia James wrote a letter to USCIS questioning its decision to cancel ceremonies in several counties in her state; USCIS said the counties “did not meet the statutory requirements.” On Dec. 9 in Indianapolis, 38 out of 100 prospective citizens were turned away at their ceremony, according to local news reports. Local outlets in Atlanta reported that, on Dec. 12, three immigrants had their oath ceremonies canceled.

The efforts to clamp down on legal immigration pathways follows the shooting of two National Guard members in Washington, one fatally, just before Thanksgiving. An Afghan national, who entered the country legally in 2021 through a program for allies who served alongside the U.S. military, has been charged with first-degree murder. Following that attack, President Donald Trump quickly announced significant immigration restrictions, including a pause on all asylum decisions. This week, the Trump administration added 20 countries to a list of nations whose citizens face full or partial bans on entering the U.S.

Those who apply for naturalization are some of the most thoroughly vetted immigrants in the country. To be eligible, an immigrant must generally have been a lawful permanent resident for at least five years, be a “person of good moral character,” and pass tests in civics and English. The process can take decades, and the oath ceremony is largely seen as a formality.

Gail Breslow, the executive director of Project Citizenship in Boston, said that 21 clients of the organization had their naturalization ceremonies canceled this month. Clients were either pulled out of line at the Dec. 4 ceremony or notified via email that their ceremonies, scheduled for Dec. 4 or Dec. 10, had been canceled.

Source: The next step was citizenship. Then these immigrants were pulled out of line.

Adams et al: Writing a new immigration story for Canada

It’s both, the contribution immigrants make and the limits of absorptive capacity:

…The Canadian success story about immigration we celebrated just a few years ago has changed, and we are now writing a new chapter. The world is changing rapidly in ways that we cannot expect to avoid, and the path forward will be like navigating rapids in a surging river. Sustaining public and political support for the multicultural and immigrant-welcoming society that Canada has built over the past half-century will require a careful balance between the immigration inflow necessary for economic growth and labour market demand, and our collective capacity to ensure a place (that is, a home, a job, health care, education and other essential public services) for everyone, native-born and newcomer alike. The newly-released federal budget appears aimed in this direction, and time will tell whether it helps us reach such balance.

This new chapter calls upon our leaders across all sectors to reframe the narrative around how we think about newcomers who arrive in our country. The tendency is to think of them primarily as people who require housing, jobs and other supports like language training – as a drain on government funding and places pressure on existing resources. Instead we need to focus more on newcomers as an essential influx of talent and needed skills that can help energize our communities and maintain our current standard of living now and into the future.

Source: Writing a new immigration story for Canada

Keller: Canada’s falling population is exactly what the doctor ordered

mmMore from Keller:

…There’s a compelling logic to choosing many permanent immigrants from the temporary resident pool. But with such a large pool, and so many more applicants than permanent residence spaces, Canada can afford to be choosy. For the sake of the economy, we must be choosy. 

Unfortunately, that’s not what Ottawa and the provinces are doing. The Carney government gets a small gold star for a couple of quarters of right-sizing immigration quantity, but it gets a question mark, and even a black mark, when it comes to correcting the significant downgrade in immigration quality and selectivity that took place under the Trudeau government.

Source: Canada’s falling population is exactly what the doctor ordered

Immigration and Crime Shift Canadians Toward Cultural Conservatism

Another survey confirming a shift and partisan differences:

The data reveals a 16-point increase over the past 5 years in hostile views of immigrants.

A clear majority (54%) now believe that immigration threatens traditional Canadian customs and values, up from just 38% in 2020, with a small 4-point NET score increase occurring in the past year (from +15 to +19). This isn’t a blip, but a trend with momentum.

The partisan dimension is striking, with those who self-identify with Conservatives (73%) and Bloc (75%) leading this concern in contrast to Liberals (37%) and NDP (33%) Even more telling, attitudes toward legal immigration have soured considerably, with only 39% now viewing it positively, down a stunning 15 points since 2018. Meanwhile, 61% favour making immigration more difficult, up 16 points from 2018’s 45%.

Concern about illegal immigration remains statistically unchanged at 75% viewing it as serious since 2018, but the intensity has shifted. 42% now rate it “very serious,” up from 37% in 2018. Those who self-identify with Conservatives drive this at 88%, but half of the NDP identifiers and almost three-in-four (71%) Liberals also agree.

Canadians aren’t just worried; they are assigning blame. A striking 72% believe the federal government has failed to manage immigration, with 72% saying too many immigrants have been admitted, and 71% linking excessive immigration to housing pressures and declining services. Nearly 3-in-5 Canadians (58%) report that their views on immigration have changed over the past five years, with Conservatives (70%) and Bloc supporters (75%) most likely to acknowledge this shift….

Source: Immigration and Crime Shift Canadians Toward Cultural Conservatism

Rétention des immigrants récents: Le Québec maintenant champion canadien

Strong short-term retention, weaker long-term retention:

Un an après leur admission, 91,5 % des immigrants permanents admis en 2022 qui prévoyaient s’établir au Québec y vivaient toujours. En Ontario, la proportion est de 91,3 %, selon des données publiées vendredi par Statistique Canada.

Ce résultat est d’autant plus surprenant qu’il s’inscrit dans un contexte de mobilité accrue.

En 2023, 13,5 % des immigrants admis un an plus tôt avaient déjà changé de province ou de territoire, en hausse marquée par rapport à 10,1 % en 2022. La pandémie a laissé des traces : la mobilité interprovinciale a bondi à ce moment, puis est restée élevée.

Autrement dit, les nouveaux arrivants bougent davantage. Dans ce contexte, réussir à en garder plus de neuf sur dix après un an n’a rien d’anodin.

Le Québec fait mieux que l’Ontario, mais aussi la Colombie-Britannique (88,5 %) et l’Alberta (87,3 %). Pour la cohorte admise en 2022, c’est le meilleur taux de rétention à un an au pays.

Une montée rapide

La montée du Québec est récente, mais rapide. Entre 2019 et 2022, le taux de rétention à un an est passé de 85,9 % à 91,5 %, après avoir atteint un sommet en 2021 (93,4 %). Malgré un léger recul en 2022, le niveau demeure élevé.

Pendant ce temps, l’Ontario faisait du surplace. Depuis 2019, son taux de rétention tourne autour de 93 %, sans progression marquée.

Résultat : le Québec a rattrapé, puis dépassé la province voisine.

À moyen terme, le tableau change. Cinq ans après leur arrivée, 79,6 % des immigrants permanents admis en 2018 résidaient toujours au Québec, contre 90,8 % en Ontario.

À l’échelle des grandes villes, Montréal est plus fragile. Son taux de rétention sur cinq ans a atteint 71,3 %, comparable à celui de Toronto, mais inférieur à ceux de Vancouver, Calgary et Edmonton.

Concrètement, Montréal perd encore des immigrants vers d’autres provinces. Sur cinq ans, la métropole enregistre une perte nette de 5725 immigrants permanents pour la cohorte admise en 2018, pendant que plusieurs villes de l’Ouest canadien continuent d’en gagner.

À court terme, le Québec dans son ensemble tire mieux son épingle du jeu. Pour la cohorte admise en 2022, la province affiche un solde migratoire interprovincial positif, avec un gain net de 2095 immigrants permanents.

Le Québec ne fait pas que retenir la majorité de ceux qui s’y installent : il attire aussi des immigrants initialement destinés à d’autres provinces, surtout l’Ontario.

Source: Rétention des immigrants récents Le Québec maintenant champion canadien

StatsCan study: In 2023, 13.5% of immigrants admitted 1 year earlier settled in another province or territory, up from 10.1% in 2022


Rob Breakenridge: A debate on immigration will be a welcome distraction for Smith

Playing with fire?

…There are two sides of this question to consider: the degree to which Alberta wishes to control immigration and the degree to which Alberta wishes to limit immigration.

In her post last week and in an interview with Postmedia’s Rick Bell, Smith went out of her way to float the idea of limiting newcomers’ access to various social supports, based either on immigration status or number of years spent in Alberta.

This may not be hardline enough for the ardent separatists whose manifestofantasizes about deportations in the tens of thousands in their new utopia. But it’s a pretty clear signal that the Alberta government wishes to discourage any further influx of newcomers to this province.

This would seem to be a more recent and strategic pivot from this premier. It wasn’t that long ago that Smith was musing about the possibility of more than doubling Alberta’s population and drafting a letter to Prime Minister Trudeau criticizing federal immigration limits. The “Alberta is Calling” campaign may have originated under the previous premier, but it continued under the current one.

The Alberta government wanted population growth, but they didn’t seem prepared for the possibility that they might get it. The focus on the immigration issue provides a convenient scapegoat for the government’s mismanagement of that rapid population growth.

Pointing fingers at Ottawa doesn’t preclude the need to address these growth pressures. New figures from Statistics Canada show that while Canada’s population actually shrunk in the third quarter, Alberta’s population continued to grow.

But this is a volatile issue at the best of times. The political pressures that have thrust this issue to the forefront for the Alberta government, and their motivations for elevating this to a top priority — alongside a separation vote, no less — create the potential for a divisive and unhelpful debate.

Source: Rob Breakenridge: A debate on immigration will be a welcome distraction for Smith

Khan: We have to confront what Ahmed al Ahmed fought on Bondi Beach 

Of note:

…The Muslim community in Sydney has taken a clear stand: it will not receive the body of the deceased terrorist, nor perform funeral rites over it. Dr. Jamal Rifi, a prominent Muslim leader in the city, said: “We don’t see [the offenders] as inside the fold of Islam or as Muslims,” adding, “what they have done is not condoned by any of us and it is killing innocent civilians. We know it is a verse in our book, killing an innocent civilian is the same as killing all humanity.”

Australian authorities have yet to indicate if the attack was related to Israel’s violence against Palestinians. Nonetheless, this is an opportunity to clearly delineate the actions of a government from those of Jews worldwide. It is not antisemitic to criticize and oppose the Israeli government’s genocidal actions against the Palestinians in Gaza and its brutal military occupation of the West Bank. The war crime of Oct. 7, 2023 cannot justify war crimes in which tens of thousands of Palestinian women and children are killed and populations are starved. It is antisemitic, however, to blame all Jews for the actions of the Israeli government. It is antisemitic to vandalize Jewish institutions, businesses and communities in protest. It is antisemitic to instill fear in Jewish communities – and Muslims know all too well the danger of being blamed and targeted for the actions of a few.

After the terrorist attack at a Quebec City mosque during which six worshippers were gunned down in cold blood, and after the murder of three generations of the Afzal family in London, Ont., by an Islamophobe, Canadian Muslims understandably feared for their safety. And while government and law enforcement responded to assure a shaken community, it was grassroots support and love by ordinary Canadians that helped in the healing process. 

Our Jewish friends, colleagues and neighbours are hurting and fearful. Let us all reach out with wings of mercy and compassion, to build stronger communities – and to build a stronger Canada.

Source: We have to confront what Ahmed al Ahmed fought on Bondi Beach

Sergio Marchi still believes in ethical politicians. Here’s why [citizenship oath change]

Although known, worth reminding:

You almost got Mr. Chretien to let you get rid of the citizenship oath to the Queen. At the last minute, he intervened and told you to pull the plug. How come?

I said, “Boss, why are you asking me to do this? We’re almost there. You had supported this!” He said it was the middle of the 1995 Quebec referendum and he didn’t want to fight monarchists and separatists at the same time. I told him, “Let’s have our own citizenship oath, a simple, powerful oath to country, rather than to the monarchy.” And he said, “Trust me, we’ll get back to it later.” But one of the lessons I learned in politics is that when you pause something in politics, oftentimes you lose it, and that’s exactly what happened. I was very, very close, and it’s one of my regrets.  …

Source: Opinion | Sergio Marchi still believes in ethical politicians. Here’s why