Citizenship Act: Canadian Council of Refugees Submission

2014/03/27 Leave a comment

Submission have started. This one, from the Canadian Council of Refugees, contains few surprises. My sense is that their concerns range from the relatively less significant (e.g., change in residency, fees) to more substantive (e.g., revocation):

Principles

Citizenship rules are fundamental to who we are as a country. We believe it is crucial that the rules:

a) Respect the principle that all citizens are equal.

b) Embrace newcomers and encourage them to quickly become full participating members of our society.

c) Recognize the barriers that some newcomers face to full participation, including the particular barriers faced by refugees who have suffered persecution and long years of deprivation.

d) Respect the principle that citizenship is a status from which rights derive, and is thus similar to our status as human beings. It is not something that can be lost through bad behaviour.

e) Be clear about who acquires or loses citizenship. Individuals should have access to a fair hearing before an independent decision-maker. Decisions should not be made on a discretionary basis by the Minister.

RT @ccrweb: Concerned about changes to #citizenship in Canada? So are we. Read our submission to Parliament: http://t.co/qGwUxcxTNT #cdnimm…

Filed under C-24, Citizenship, Citizenship Act Tagged with ,

Sheryl Saperia: The case for revoking citizenship

2014/03/25 2 Comments

The alternate view to that expressed by Chris Selley a number of weeks ago (Actually, my citizenship is a right | National Post)  by Sheryl Saperia is Director of Policy for Canada at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD)

Bill C-24 makes ordinary Canadians safer by adding a new layer of deterrence against engaging in terrorism, treason and armed conflict with Canada; facilitating the removal of people who pose a threat not only to Canada, but to the vulnerable individuals in our society susceptible to radicalization; and removing the coveted Canadian passport from those who would use it as a tool to support or carry out terrorist attacks.

Sheryl Saperia: The case for revoking citizenship | National Post.

Filed under C-24, Citizenship, Citizenship Act Tagged with , ,

Citizenship – Varia

2014/03/12 Leave a comment

Catching up on citizenship issues while I was away.

Good piece by Nicholas Yeoung of the Star sharing some anecdotal reactions to the proposed changes to the Citizenship Act:

http://read.thestar.com/?origref=http%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2FcyqfDhUNZj#!/article/53147e0bec0691be4e000037

More on the British revocation provisions regarding those convicted of or suspect of terrorist activities. In contrast to the proposed approach by the Canadian government, the UK Minister has the authority, not the courts, and the UK does not intend to respect the international convention on statelessness:

How a British Citizen Was Stripped of His Citizenship, Then Sent to a Manhattan Prison | The Nation

Some op-eds on perceived remaining issues related to changes in the government’s approach to citizenship, starting with the first generation limit and a somewhat plaintive complaint about the impact on his daughter, born, living and growing up in the USA, who will not be able to pass on her Canadian citizenship to her children. Part of the risk of expatriate life, and if it is that important to her family, there are a number of paths available (but none are cost-free, ranging from the family spending time in Canada, to the daughter marrying a Canadian or giving birth in Canada).

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/my-daughters-second-class-citizenship/article17124132/

A more serious issue is to what extent is the government required to provide consular assistance, given the increased range of situations Canadians find themselves:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/if-canadian-citizenship-becomes-more-exclusive-it-must-become-more-meaningful/article17133298/

No surprise that an ATIP request shows that the proposed shorter waiting time for people serving in the Canadian military is more symbolic than real, with only a minimal number of potential applicants:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/tories-citizenship-fast-track-for-soldiers-would-have-little-effect-figures-show/article17348121/

The usual monthly update on citizenship processing stats, showing improvement given Budget 2013 money. The test is whether the government will continue to publish these stats should the trend turn, or commit to service standards and quarterly reports, rather than press releases when it serves their interest.

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/media/releases/2014/2014-02-28.asp

And pity the abandoned Chinese millionaires:

http://feedly.com/e/uTyR2SKo

Filed under C-24, Citizenship, Citizenship Act, Revocation Tagged with , , , ,

Changing citizenship rule could hurt Canada’s efforts to woo foreign students: observers

2014/02/24 Leave a comment

Ironic, as the Government has been innovative in attracting foreign students through new categories like the Canadian Experience Class, that no longer counting time as a non-permanent resident student is part of the proposed Citizenship Act revisions. Unclear whether this will have much direct impact on recruitment efforts for international students but that is the fear:

The change is raising some eyebrows as it creates a potential hurdle for those who typically make well-integrated, sought-after immigrants.

“Increasingly international students are seen as a fabulous talent pool for Canada, they’re golden immigrants,” said Jennifer Humphries, a vice-president at the Canadian Bureau for International Education.

“They can be huge contributors to the Canadian society, Canadian economy. If we create roadblocks to them, what will happen could mean that they could get their education in Canada and end up going to work in the U.S.”

Changing citizenship rule could hurt Canada’s efforts to woo foreign students: observers – Canada, Need to know, News & Politics – Macleans.ca.

Filed under C-24, Citizenship, Citizenship Act Tagged with

Citizenship: Finding the Right Balance – New Canadian Media

2014/02/22 Leave a comment

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.

Filed under C-24, Citizenship, Citizenship Act Tagged with

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

2014/02/20 2 Comments

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

 

Filed under C-24, Citizenship, Citizenship Act Tagged with ,

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

2014/02/19 2 Comments

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.

Filed under C-24, Citizenship, Citizenship Act, Revocation Tagged with , ,

Chris Alexander balances his portfolio and power

2014/02/18 2 Comments

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.

Filed under C-24, Citizenship, Citizenship Act Tagged with

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

2014/02/13 Leave a comment

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.

Filed under C-24, Citizenship, Citizenship Act Tagged with

Citizenship Act Revocation: Commentary

2014/02/12 2 Comments

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).

Filed under C-24, Citizenship, Citizenship Act Tagged with , , , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →