Citizenship: Finding the Right Balance – New Canadian Media

My overall assessment of the proposed changes to the Citizenship Act, with the conclusion being:

The challenge for all governments is how to balance citizenship as a “place,” assuming citizens remain in their country of immigration, and citizenship as a “status,” a more instrumental view of citizenship as a means to secure employment and other rights.

It is hard for any government to craft options that address the diverse needs of people applying for citizenship. Immigrants who choose Canada for economic reasons may have a more instrumental view of citizenship. Providing them with greater flexibility, and encouraging them to choose Canada, without weakening the meaning of citizenship, or providing additional opportunities for citizens of convenience, will always be a challenge. With the longer residency requirements and “intent to reside” provision, Mr. Alexander may be reducing the attractiveness to the more highly skilled and entrepreneurial immigrants.

Mr. Alexander has come down firmly on the side of citizenship as “place.” The emphasis on integrity and streamlined business processes is understandable, with the possible exception of differential treatment of Canadian citizens and dual nationals in revocation. His inattention to fairness issues and citizenship promotion is regrettable. However, taken together, Mr. Alexander’s proposed changes remain largely within the Canadian context of encouraging immigrants to become citizens, and remaining competitive with other countries.

Citizenship: Finding the Right Balance – New Canadian Media – NCM.

Selling the Citizenship Act Revisions

Less print reporting than I would have expected (or at least what came up on my regular media search) on the Minister’s outreach this past week in Winnipeg, Vancouver and Halifax, selling the proposed changes to the Citizenship Act.

From Vancouver with the Chinese Canadian community:

“The government is trying to control too much,” said Vancouver-based Chinese Canadian news commentator Victor Ho, who also edits the Sing Tao Daily. “To make everyone from age 14 to 64 learn English up to a mandatory level, I think the government is trying to interfere too strongly. If a teenager is living here, then he (or she) is already learning the language in schools, and will pick it up. And as for seniors, you can encourage them, but that should really be more of the family’s decision.”

Another hot topic was the end of the immigrant investor program, which offered visas to people with a net worth of at least $1.6 million who were willing to lend $800,000 to the Canadian government for investment across Canada for a term of five years. The change, which would leave 45,000 Chinese millionaires in limbo, was proposed in the new 2014 budget. The decision has angered some in the Chinese Canadian business community, with some people speaking out at a press conference in Chinatown.

Immigration Minister Chris Alexander reveals contradictions in citizenship law | Vancouver Observer.

From the Halifax session, focussing on revocation and Lost Canadians:

The government had earlier signaled its intention to strip Canadians of their citizenship if they are involved in terrorist activities abroad, leading critics to say such a provision leaves Canadians vulnerable to false accusations from undemocratic regimes. But Mr. Alexander, speaking at a news conference in Halifax, said the new Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act makes it clear that terrorism convictions would have to be from Canadian courts and the provisions would only apply to people who have dual citizenship. He added that the measure is intended “to be a deterrent to dual nationals who might think of going to fight for extremist groups” in Syria or elsewhere.

High bar to strip citizenship: Minister

Some earlier commentary in the Indo-Canadian Voice, largely description of the proposed changes to citizenship by William MacIntosh, an immigration lawyer:

As long as Canada offers health care and other social benefits, there is a legitimate political question about the tax contribution of the several million Canadians living abroad to pay for those services should they return. The government may say the proposed changes help address the problem, but the changes are window dressing. The real change would come with amendments to tax laws, which would be much harder to sell politically.

Indo-Canadian Voice | Tougher citizenship laws miss mark on expatriate issues.

Ottawa’s new citizenship rules are perverse: Commentary from Right and Left

The counter-argument to making citizenship more restrictive given the realities of globalization, by Dan Devoretz of Simon Fraser and Yuen Pau Woo of the Asia Pacific Foundation. I think their fears of the changes are over exaggerated, as Canada will still  largely remain competitive with other immigrant attracting countries.

However, the emphasis on citizenship meaningfulness and attachment needs to be balanced by the realities below. The problem for governments is that we have no realistic or practical way to measure attachment to Canada except by the proxy of physical presence:

The new act rightly identifies an important objective of citizenship policy as the need to create attachment to Canada. This policy, however, should not be defined in the narrow sense of physical presence within our borders. The reality of a globalized workforce — especially for highly skilled workers — is that they have the option to work in many different jurisdictions and likely will spend parts of their professional lives outside of their native or adopted countries. Exhibit A: the Governor of the Bank of England.

In a highly competitive market for global talent, the challenge should be defined not as how to stop immigrants from leaving, but rather as how to encourage our citizens abroad to stay attached to Canada.

The implicit message of the new act — which requires immigrants to be resident in Canada four years out of six in order to become a citizen — is that Canadians who spend more than one-third of their lives outside the country are lesser citizens. Indeed, the current rules deny Canadians the right to vote if they have lived abroad for more than five years. That would include Mark Carney by the time he completes his term at the Bank of England.

Ottawa’s new citizenship rules are perverse | Toronto Star.

A more predictable critique from the left by Patti Tamara Lenard of UofO and the Broadbent Institute:

The justifications being offered by Alexander in defense of these changes – to ensure loyalty to Canada, to protect the integrity of the system, to support the value of Canadian citizenship – are thin. There is no evidence that longer wait times increase loyalty to a state – just look at so many European states, where the average wait times for citizenship extend much longer than they do in Canada. Immigrants to European states exhibit no more, and often less, loyalty to their receiving state. The problems to which this Act is responding appear to be mere phantoms, even by Alexander’s own admission. He acknowledges that Canadians value their citizenship highly – “Canadian citizenship is uniquely valuable in the world”, he observes, implying that immigrants may somehow fail to understand this. Yet, among those Canadians who value Canadian citizenship are presumably the millions of immigrants who acquired citizenship through an expedited process.

Questionable motives drive changes to Citizenship Act

 

Tories speed up plan to give minister power to strip citizenship – The Globe and Mail

More debate on the proposed revocation measures, particularly with respect to revocation for fraud and Ministerial decision-making. The previous revocation process was largely unworkable:

Mr. Alexander told CTV this week the existing revocation process is “one of the most time-consuming, document-intensive bureaucratic processes I’ve ever seen.” His spokeswoman, Codie Taylor, said the unilateral system is meant to “reduce duplication and bureaucracy. We are making the citizenship system more efficient, which will result in decreased backlogs and improved processing times.”

Canada can’t leave a person stateless under international treaty law, so the rules apply only to dual citizens. The law also puts the onus on those accused to prove they’d be left stateless – not on government to prove they wouldn’t. Mr. Alexander also now has the sole right to grant “discretionary” citizenship, though the government says it will not make public the list of those who get it.

The changes in Bill C-24 omit Sections 10 and 18 of the existing Citizenship Act, which dealt with revocation and a subject’s right to appeal to court. While court will no longer be an option in some cases, Winnipeg immigration lawyer David Matas noted other cases actually will be sent to a higher court than before. “This new legislation, as far as I can see, is an improvement,” he said.

Tories speed up plan to give minister power to strip citizenship – The Globe and Mail.

Chris Alexander balances his portfolio and power

Konrad Yakabuski’s favourable profile of CIC Minister Chris Alexander:

Canada remains an outlier in that it has not seen a rise in anti-immigration politics. Making sure it stays that way requires striking the right balance to retain public confidence in our citizenship laws. C-24 largely gets this balance right, but Mr. Alexander has more work to do to make the case for its revocation provisions.

If he succeeds with the immigration file, as Mr. Kenney did, watch out. For Conservatives unenthusiastic about future leadership prospects Peter MacKay, John Baird or Mr. Kenney, the polyglot internationalist who recently aced his grilling on Quebec’s Tout le monde en parle – he took being compared to a Ken doll as a compliment – might just be the answer to their prayers. There is little doubt he has the brains.

“Chris understands the exercise of power,” says former deputy foreign-affairs minister Peter Harder. “He’s got tremendous gifts, the full potential of which have not been realized.”

Chris Alexander balances his portfolio and power – The Globe and Mail.

In defence of Ottawa’s citizenship shift: Chris Alexander | Toronto Star

Op-ed by Minister Alexander to some of the over-the-top commentary by The Star on the proposed changes to the Citizenship Act. A number of his points are valid, particularly regarding the failure to recognize that there was abuse in the citizenship (and other) programs (reminds me of the Downton Abbey scene in which the Dowager Countess asks Isabelle whether Isabelle never doubts the honesty of people).

However, the change in a basic principle in Canadian citizenship policy for two generations, equal treatment for Canadian-born and naturalized Canadians, should not be glossed over. This change, combined with the “intent to reside” provision, needs to be reviewed closely on both substantive and process grounds. While the easy cases (e.g., the 130 Canadians fighting with extremist groups cited by the Minister) are of legitimate concern, the risk is that this substantive change to traditional policy (“a Canadian is a Canadian”) may cast a broader net with unforeseen consequences.

Minister Alexander’s overall messaging:

The new measures in Bill C-24, the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, are a deterrent to those who might seek to abuse our generosity, circumvent our laws or attack us in cold blood.

We are all proud of our Canadian citizenship. Let’s make it stronger than ever by ensuring new Canadians have a real connection to this country, by reducing processing times, by honouring those who serve, by eliminating fraud and abuse and by deterring disloyalty.

In defence of Ottawa’s citizenship shift: Chris Alexander | Toronto Star.

Citizenship Act Revocation: Commentary

Strong commentary on both sides of the political spectrum on the revocation and related provisions of the proposed changes to the Citizenship Act, starting with Chris Selley of the National Post:

Grown-up countries clean up their own messes. You don’t “strengthen Canadian citizenship,” as Bill C-24 purports to, by making it easier to revoke, by kicking your junk into another country’s closet. You strengthen Canadian citizenship by holding wayward or treasonous citizens to account, and by demanding fair and equal treatment for even the most unpopular, thereby reinforcing the obligations they violated. Mr. Khadr’s case showed us how far Canada has to go. The Conservatives propose to take us even further in the wrong direction.

Chris Selley: Actually, my citizenship is a right | National Post.

Audrey Macklin and Lorne Waldman of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, in addition to their previous criticism of the revocation provisions, note additional problems with differential treatment of Canadian-born vs naturalized Canadians:

The provision also holds out the implicit threat that if a naturalized Canadian citizen takes up a job somewhere else (as many Canadians do), or leaves Canada to study abroad (as many Canadians do), the government may move to strip the person of citizenship because they misrepresented their intention to reside in Canada when they were granted citizenship. Whether the government acts on the threat is not the issue; it is enough that people will be made insecure and apprehensive by the possibility that the government may arbitrarily decide to launch revocation proceedings against them if they leave Canada too soon, or remain away too long. That’s not a way to foster a citizenship of commitment. That’s how to foster a citizenship of fear.

I had viewed this provision as more symbolic than enforceable, but Macklin and Waldman have a point as this could be deemed fraud should a naturalized citizen leave Canada for professional or personal reasons. CIC may not today be able to enforce such a provision. However, as the government implements its plans for exit controls, this may change. As many Canadians, both naturally-born and naturalized, live abroad, often for reasons that most would consider valid (i.e., not just “citizens of convenience”), this provision bears greater scrutiny.

Citizenship reforms a serious threat to rights of all Canadians

Lastly, a reminder that not all share this concern. Kevin Hampson in the Mayerthorpe Freelancer, strongly supports the revocation measures:

Being Canadian is a privilege, not a right—that’s the message. Those are much better terms on which to welcome newcomers.

Finally, despite the Toronto Star’s alarmism, it is just and proper to strip citizenship from people who engage in terrorism. Thomas Walkom’s characterization of this view as “radical” shows the extent of his esteem for Canadian citizenship.

Walkom suggests that thousands of Canadians could have their citizenship revoked. Here’s a tip: don’t want to lose your citizenship? Don’t become a terrorist.

“Yesterday’s terrorist can be tomorrow’s hero,” Walkom shrugs. To which we reply: If Canada in the future celebrates Islamic terrorists as heroes, Walkom will have worse things to worry about than Bill C-24.

Canada’s new Citizenship Act is long overdue

Still haven’t seen much commentary in French language media. Will also be interesting to see how ethnic press covers this (how I miss the ethnic media press scan at CIC).

Citizenship Act Revisions – Reactions

web-monedcar10col1

Globe and Mail

 

Courtesy of Actively Passive, more compilation of reaction to the proposed changes.

Saskatchewan reacts to proposed Citizenship Act changes (Joe Couture,www.leaderpost.com)
Saskatchewan Economy Minister Bill Boyd says the provincial government is generally supportive of proposed changes to citizenship rules introduced by the federal government Thursday.
http://www.leaderpost.com/Saskatchewan+reacts+proposed+Citizenship+changes/9479347/story.html

Citizenship Act shift hits family (Robert Barron, www.nanaimodailynews.com)
Marina Filatova is concerned about what the changes to Canada’s Citizenship Act that are being proposed by the Conservative government will mean to her and her family.
http://www.nanaimodailynews.com/opinion/citizenship-act-shift-hits-family-1.826905

 

Canada floats new citizenship rules that could affect thousands of Chinese)
Canada has unveiled sweeping reforms that would require immigrants spend more time as permanent residents, file tax returns and sign an undertaking to continue living in the country if they want to become citizens.