Ellermann and Brunner: Making immigrants into settlers: settler colonial common sense in Canadian citizenship guides

Hard to imagine any government adopting such an all-embracing approach to the citizenship study guide. The current draft, never approved by over four ministers, reportedly has increased emphasis on Indigenous peoples, but is unlikely to satisfy the academic focus on settler colonialism. 

It remains to be seen whether the current minister will release the revised guide, given her poor communications skills, and whether the government may find the version overly expansive compared to its more restrained approach to Indigenous peoples and diversity in general:

..In federal citizenship guides, settler colonialism is never named; the foundational structure of the Indian Act is omitted; references to reserves appear as decontextualized descriptions; and residential schools are minimized in ways that individualize harm. Treaties are absent until 1995 and, when introduced, are framed through a transactional logic that naturalizes settler title and casts Indigenous rights as historical accommodations rather than living, nation-to-nation obligations. Land is repeatedly depicted through frontier and extractive imaginaries, while Indigenous relations to land are relegated to culture or history.

The 2020 COA guide diverges most clearly in its explicit engagement with reconciliation, including interactive exercises that invite immigrants to plan tangible actions. This participatory approach positions immigrants as active agents; still, this participation remains low stakes. Most significantly, other than a brief acknowledgement of an official 2008 federal apology in the official 2009 guide, reconciliation appears only in this preparatory COA arrival guide, rather than in authoritative citizenship pedagogy tied to membership, rights, and national belonging. Reconciliation thus surfaces precisely where it does not condition citizenship itself, reinforcing its status as a moral supplement rather than a foundational political principle. Each attempt to produce a Canadian consensual history through citizenship pedagogy can be read through Cook’s (2018) account of settler ignorance, in which even recognition-oriented narratives historicize colonial violence and sustain a shared misrecognition of the present.

In the context of ongoing settler colonial dispossession, education alone cannot serve as the ‘key condition for reconciliation’ (Chatterjee 2018, 3). State-produced citizenship guides in settler colonial contexts will not escape settler logics, nor can a revised narrative ‘undo’ settlerism. Yet these texts still matter. They can either deepen so-called consensus and reinforce settler ignorance, or create openings for interruption.

As Chickasaw scholar Jodi Byrd (2011) writes, ‘settler, native, and arrivant [must] each acknowledge their own positions within empire and then reconceptualize space and history to make visible what imperialism . . . has sought to obscure’ (xxx). Within settler states, even this more modest demand – for truth rather than structural transformation – remains politically fraught. Citizenship guides operate within an apparatus designed to stabilize, rather than interrupt, settler colonial authority; yet they nonetheless constitute one of the few official sites through which prospective citizens encounter state-sanctioned narratives of belonging. At minimum, such texts could invite immigrants – differently positioned within racial hierarchies and imperial histories – to confront citizenship not as an untroubled inheritance, but as a relationship constituted through ongoing colonial conditions and responsibilities. While this falls far short of dismantling settler colonialism, it gestures toward a refusal of innocence, historical amnesia, and citizenship as a completed project.

Source: Making immigrants into settlers: settler colonial common sense in Canadian citizenship guides

Gaucher: The U.S. narrowly upheld birthright citizenship. What about Canada?

Classic case of ideology driving the research. As always, race overshadows class in these critiques. And an IRCC/StatsCan study estimated that 70 percent of non-resident self-pay deliveries were visitor visas, not temporary workers or international students, the category most likely to be birth tourists:

…At the heart of these debates is reproductive racism — the systemic control or regulation of people’s pro-creative capacities based on their race. The political reasons for restricting citizenship policy are tied directly to anti-immigrant, racist and sexist sentiments that stigmatize migrant women’s reproduction….

Source: The U.S. narrowly upheld birthright citizenship. What about Canada?

French: MAGA’s Birthright Meltdown Is in Full Effect

Good commentary:

The people above — who range from a sometime trillionaire to billionaires to government officials to journalists and pundits — aren’t exceptional on the populist right. They’re emblematic of a movement that, like Trump, is constantly arguing that this country is minutes away from midnight and that only the most extreme measures can yank America back from the brink of destruction.

And to them, Exhibit A of the destruction of America is the birthright citizenship case, the ultimate symbol of national suicide.

But how could that be? The Supreme Court’s decision did nothing more than confirm a legal status quo that’s existed since the ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868 — a ruling that’s rooted in centuries-old British and American conceptions of citizenship.

Part of the rage seems to be rooted in a sense that MAGA came oh so close to winning. Miller told Fox News’s Jesse Watters, “The fact that it was 5-4 — so agonizingly close — just underscored that the legal community on the right and left has been so wrong for so many years, saying this was going to be a 9-0 ruling against President Trump.”

But that’s not quite right. Yes, there were only five unqualified votes for the constitutional status quo, but there were six total votes for birthright citizenship (Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote that birthright citizenship was required by statute, not the Constitution), and Justice Neil Gorsuch’s dissent indicated that he was mainly concerned with citizenship for the children of temporary visitors.

As Gorsuch wrote about the children of unauthorized immigrants, “What matters isn’t whether a child’s parents are citizens. What matters is whether they (and, by law, their child at birth) have made this place their home and are thus ‘domiciled within the United States.’” The strong implication was that Trump’s order denying citizenship to undocumented immigrants was far too broad.

Now, by this reckoning, we can count seven justices who would retain the status quo for the children of unauthorized immigrants, at least when those families wish to stay in the United States. Birthright citizenship — at least for those people whose families live in the United States — is far more secure than MAGA seems to believe. Or wants to believe…

That’s why we believe that any person born in the United States is a citizen. The creed has helped create and sustain a culture, and then both creed and culture tell us that each person in this country is of equal worth and equal status. If the creed isn’t central to our identity, then why does the oath of office bind the president to “preserve, protect and defend” a constitution, not a country?

The Declaration, the Constitution, the Gettysburg Address — these are the proclamations that define who we are. They are the core of the American creed, and without that creed, America might retain its name, but it will not retain its nature.

Source: MAGA’s Birthright Meltdown Is in Full Effect

Expatriate Voting and Citizenship 

My analysis of expatriate votes in the 2025 election, broken down by province and country, and 13 ridings in which the percentage of expatriate votes is within one percent of the winning margin.

The impact of C-3 (citizenship by descent) is expected to be limited given Elections Canada requires expatriates to have resided in Canada in order to qualify for a special ballot, less likely in the case of second and earlier generations. But we shall see once we have full 2026 data on the overall numbers, ideally broken down by generation.

The [SCOTUS] Birthright Decision Was Surprisingly Close, Some Legal Scholars Say

Surprising, but perhaps not for this court:

On the final day of its term, the Supreme Court issued a majority opinion with a clear message: Birthright citizenship is a right guaranteed by the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.That decision on Tuesday, striking down President Trump’s executive order limiting birthright citizenship, reaffirmed decades of legal thought and practice.

But some civil rights advocates, lawyers and legal scholars were surprised that four justices — Clarence Thomas, Brett M. Kavanaugh, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch — said that they did not see birthright citizenship as a constitutional right for certain groups.

(Justice Kavanaugh agreed with the majority’s decision to strike down Mr. Trump’s executive order, but based his reasoning on a federal statute rather than on the 14th Amendment.)

“This should have been a 9-0 decision,” said Bethany Li, executive director of the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, which filed an amicus brief against the president’s order.

For more than a century, there was broad consensus among most legal scholars and the courts that the 14th Amendment extended citizenship not just to the children of formerly enslaved people, but also to nearly all babies born within the United States. It was only when Mr. Trump began running for office, in 2015, that a once-fringe academic theory — that the 14th Amendment was only about slavery, and did not cover the children of temporary visitors — started to gain political and legal traction.

The momentum culminated in Mr. Trump’s executive order on his first day back in office last year to end birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants and some temporary foreign residents.

“A year and a half ago, people said there was no support for this view, that it was ahistorical and atextual,” said Ilan Wurman, a law professor at the University of Minnesota who filed an amicus brief in support of Mr. Trump’s executive order. “So to get four votes for the Trump administration’s position here is quite a coup.”

To be sure, the ruling was ultimately a win for proponents of birthright citizenship….

Source: The Birthright Decision Was Surprisingly Close, Some Legal Scholars Say

Bill C-3 opened citizenship claims to those with pre-Confederation ancestry

Good question. In the past, 1947 was the benchmark given a distinct Canadian citizenship dates from then. Chapman of course contested that legal distinction. But prior to Confederation is really stretching things and really unclear whether or not IRCC anticipated let alone planned for these old family ties:

….Confusion over the policy has sparked a wave of online claims from would-be applicants insisting they qualify through centuries-old family ties, while officials remain silent on how many applications have been filed or approved under the new rules.

Numerous online groups and forums show a significant number of individuals who claim to be Americans with historic ties to what is now Canadian soil, believing they can claim Canadian citizenship, with some claiming they’ve received citizenship despite neither of their ancestors being Canadian citizens.

Sergio Karas, an immigration lawyer and staunch critic of Bill C-3, an act amending the Citizenship Act that is now law, says the Liberals have completely “botched” the bill, failed to listen to warnings, and is calling for the immigration minister, Lena Diab, to resign.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada did not respond to Juno News’ requests to clarify whether those with ancestral ties to Canada before confederation can receive automatic citizenship, nor did they provide data on how many new applications were received since Bill C-3 received Royal Assent.

Source: EXCLUSIVE: Bill C-3 opened citizenship claims to those with pre-Confederation ancestry

Ottawa reverses orders to surrender some ‘lost Canadian’ citizenship certificates

Sigh…. Suspect that the lack of discussion at CIMM and SOCI over third and earlier generation impact may reflect a lack of policy analysis over this potential:

Just one week after some “lost Canadians” were told to surrender their new citizenship certificates, a few received letters over the weekend confirming their citizenship claims are valid once again.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada spokesperson said Monday the department is now reviewing the roughly 4,100 citizenship by descent claims made under an amendment to the law that offers a path to citizenship for those with Canadian ancestors.

Citizenship certificates will not be suspended unless the review turns up a problem with a document already issued, the spokesperson said.

A statement the department issued last week said it is temporarily pausing the finalization of citizenship certificates related to the citizenship by descent amendment passed as Bill C-3.

That amendment allows people born before Dec. 15, 2025 to claim Canadian citizenship if they can prove a direct line to a Canadian ancestor generation-by-generation.

Many of those making citizenship claims under this new rule are Americans.

The department has said it sent letters earlier this month to “a few dozen” people who received citizenship under the citizenship by descent law demanding they surrender their proof of citizenship pending further review….

Source: Ottawa reverses orders to surrender some ‘lost Canadian’ citizenship certificates

Are Your Ancestors Canadian? Here’s What to Know About Becoming a Citizen.

More on C-3 implications and interest, this time in NYT. But not convinced that many will move compared to those who want it for security. Not clear whether we will have accurate data re moves however:

…There are about 63,200 citizenship applications for review ahead of the one submitted by Abbey Campbell, who started a TikTok account from her home in the Hudson Valley region of New York, to document her process and educate others on immigration rules.

“What surprised me was how many people were looking for information, and how I wasn’t the only one that felt overwhelmed,” she said. “A lot of people just didn’t know where to start.”

Information crowdsourcing efforts have appeared on social media as applicants search for relatives, share tips about parish records and exchange notes about timelines. There is an extensive Google spreadsheet, hosted on Reddit, with data from hundreds of applicants who have shared their information about their timeline for a response.

Ms. Campbell has continued to make weekly videos and answer questions from the community of potential Canadians, a space that has come to represent hope and excitement, she said. The estimated wait for her application is 11 months.

“A lot of people are planning to move there as soon as they get their citizenship,” Ms. Campbell said. “It’s a gift.”

Source: Are Your Ancestors Canadian? Here’s What to Know About Becoming a Citizen.

PROC report: Challenges Regarding Special Voting [Recommendations]

In general, sensible recommendations with my comments below each one. On a personal note, both of our children are expats, one’s ballot arrived in time (from the USA) the other not (from Europe):

Recommendation 1: That the Government of Canada should consider introducing legislation to amend the Canada Elections Act so as to require electors residing abroad to provide proof of their last place of Canadian residence as part of their application to be added to the International Register of Electors. 

Agree. While the current honour system has merit, given the potential for significant increases in expatriate voting due to C-3 expansion of citizenship transmission beyond the second generation, this would enhance the integrity, and perceived integrity, of expatriate votes.

Recommendation 2: That the Canada Revenue Agency and Elections Canada consider pursuing closer cooperation in order to determine, where possible, the most recent Canadian addresses of voters living abroad so as to assign them the electoral district in which they may vote, and improve the delivery of election information to voters living abroad. 

Worth considering as part of integrity measures and complements recommendation 1. Would only apply to those who submitted tax returns.

Recommendation 3: That for elections held on a fixed date under 56.1(2) of the Canada Elections Act, voters should be allowed to apply for a special ballot at least 45 days before election day, even if the writ has not yet been issued. Elections Canada would then be able to send a special ballot to the elector as soon as the writ has been issued. 

Makes sense. Unfortunately, given fixed election dates are more notional than real so likely little practical impact.

Recommendation 4: That the Canada Elections Act be amended to set the deadline for candidate nominations to close three days earlier than at current (i.e., on day 24 before election day, instead of on day 21 before election day). 

Would help. Not supported by Conservatives.

Recommendation 5: That Elections Canada should use couriers, when it deems appropriate, to send ballots to voters living abroad who are on the International Register of Electors. They should also provide voters with a return label to return their ballot via courier. 

Given that most expatriates don’t pay Canadian taxes, should Elections Canada pick up the tab? Alternatively, Elections Canada could offer a fee-based expedited delivery service, as it does for passports.

Recommendation 6: That Elections Canada should undertake further study of the hybrid ballot delivery systems that are used elsewhere in the world, such as printing a ballot at home to assess the feasibility of implementing them in Canada. 

Never argue about further study but found Elections Canada testimony convincing in terms of some of the issues. Conservatives expressed considerable concerns regarding possible negative impact on integrity.

Recommendation 7: That the Government of Canada should not consider any measures which would see special ballots cast by electors electronically. 

Clear response, based on integrity concerns.

Recommendation 8: That, at present, the Committee does not hold the view that electors, who cast their vote by special ballot, ought to be permitted to write the name of a political party instead of writing the name of a candidate, as was proposed in Bill C-65, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act of the 1st Session of the 44th Parliament. 

Interesting that they ended up here. But the logic is sound, even if one’s vote is party-based, MPs are elected individually. Also required expatriate voters to research the names of candidates, not just indicate the party they support.

Recommendation 9: That the Government of Canada should undertake a study to assess the feasibility of embassies providing ballots and/or acting as polling stations during Canada’s federal general elections. 

No issue with studying the issue but suspect some integrity and operational issues.

Recommendation 10: That the Government of Canada should ensure that, subject to security and logistical considerations, Canada’s embassies, high commissions and consulates provide opportunities for Canadian electors abroad to submit their special ballots for expeditious return to Elections Canada. 

Easier than Recommendation 9, but given the “subject to security and logistical considerations” and the impact on regular mission operations, even the mailbox function would raise complications in terms of meeting ballot deadlines and when they would be counted.

Recommendation 11: That having conducted a comprehensive review of the testimony, the Committee holds the view that there is no consensus on the creation of extraterritorial electoral ridings. 

Fair enough. Good discussion on issue and various complications.

Recommendation 12: That the Committee believes that candidates and political parties bear the greatest responsibilities for motivating electors, including those residing abroad, to turn out to exercise their franchise. For greater certainty, this recognition does not remove or diminish from the responsibilities borne by Elections Canada and Global Affairs Canada to provide information to Canadian electors residing abroad on how to exercise their right to vote. 

Agreed!

Source: PROC report: Challenges Regarding Special Voting [Recommendations]

Their Country [Bahrain] Revoked Their Citizenship, Then Tried to Expel Them to Iran

Sigh…:

The phone calls that upended their lives came during a family lunch, or while they were at the gym. One man heard the news from a friend, who told him to rush to the bank to withdraw his savings while he still could.

Some of them thought it was a joke, at first. Then Bahrain’s state news agency published their names, confirming that they and their children were among 69 people whose citizenship had been revoked.

Officials in Bahrain, the Persian Gulf monarchy that these families called home, were accusing them of disloyalty during the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran. A government statement on April 27 described them as individuals of “non-Bahraini origin” who were being stripped of their nationality for “glorifying or sympathizing with hostile Iranian acts.”

For weeks, Bahrain had been arresting people on similar accusations. Some had shared videos online showing missile and drone attacks that Iran had launched at Bahrain, a close U.S. ally that hosts a major American naval base….

Source: Their Country Revoked Their Citizenship, Then Tried to Expel Them to Iran