A Test of Australian Identity: Waleed Aly – The New York Times

The best piece I have seen to date on the Australian political “crisis” over dual citizenship and the obsolescent and overly broad nature of the prohibition:

It will be a fascinating legal test, boiling down to whether the Constitution is meant to cover cases in which people say they had no idea they were citizens of another country. On that point, the wording isn’t encouraging. The Constitution expressly prohibits anyone from Parliament who “is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power.”

But legal intricacies aside, it’s the talk of “subjects” that is most telling. As it stands, Section 44 of the Constitution is beginning to look like something of a relic, a monument to the 19th century that created it, and a pointer to just how profoundly Australia has changed.

Its animating idea is one of loyalty: that Australian parliamentarians must be shorn of any “allegiance, obedience or adherence to a foreign power.” But this was written at a time when Australian citizenship didn’t properly exist.

Australians were subjects of the British Empire, and the thought of simultaneously being subjects of another country would have been seen as a conflict. But the British Empire is no more, and since the end of World War II, this particular British outpost has become a thoroughly immigrant nation. That’s a rapid transition for a nation that had a “White Australia” policy until the early 1970s.

Today, nearly half of Australians were either born overseas or have at least one parent who was. In this context, dual citizenship is part of the grammar of Australian society. That’s why even the most avowedly nationalistic parties, like One Nation, have been caught up in this mess. It doesn’t matter how exclusively Australian you say you are, chances are you’ve come from somewhere else not very long ago.

That’s more than a mere demographic change. It’s a change in the notion of Australian identity.

We could say there are two ideal (and simplified) kinds of nationhood: one anchored firmly in ethnicity and culture and another built on a civil creed. Germany is frequently cited as an example of the former (it shed its citizenship laws requiring a blood connection to the country only in 2000). America, with its civil religion of individual liberty, is the classic example of the latter. Australia’s story is of a gradual, if incomplete, transition from the European to the American model.

It began as a self-consciously derivative nation, drawing its sense of self overwhelmingly from the Empire, and became a cosmopolitan New World society. Any attempt to maintain an exclusive ethnic sense of Australianness would inevitably fall apart under those conditions. There is nationalist resistance to this, but Australian identity has now become something that exists in combination with any number of other cultural identities.

This leaves Australia in a conundrum. To exclude dual citizens from Australian politics is to exclude contemporary Australia itself, and yet this is what Australia’s Constitution demands.

In the foreseeable future, this probably means a wave of political candidates renouncing their foreign citizenship. But at no stage are anyone’s loyalties likely to be altered.

Modern Australia has multiple, simultaneous identities, whether expressed in government documents or not. We will remain a nation of people with emotional attachments to foreign lands of which we’re not citizens, and of citizenships of lands to which we feel no attachment. In this instance, it’s not our dual citizens but our Constitution that’s un-Australian. Funny, that.

How to debate immigration issues in Canada (Do’s and Don’ts) – Policy Options

My reflections and suggestions on how to have a more respectful and informed conversation on immigration and related issues.

In thinking through the issues, I developed the following guidelines:

  • Be explicit about assumptions. Be mindful of conscious and unconscious biases that may inform assumptions and selection of evidence;
  • Be curious and assess the best evidence available, recognize that it may be imperfect, and avoid relying on anecdote alone;
  • Resist the temptation to use round ‘catchy’ numbers for communication purposes without substantiation or appropriate qualification;
  • Do not assume that all non-immigrants, immigrants or members of specific groups have the same beliefs, values and perspectives;
  • Use language and tone carefully to ensure respectful discussion and dialogue and avoid “demonizing” those with a different perspective;
  • Criticize words and behaviours, not the person;
  • When choosing quotes, consider the overall context and not just the particular selection;
  • Do not overplay the “I am an immigrant/am married to an immigrant/am a child of immigrants” to justify one’s position; and,
  • Do not assume that being part of a “dominant” culture means one’s views should take precedence over others.

Hope you find these guidelines and the do’s and don’ts in the article helpful.

Source: How to debate immigration issues in Canada – Policy Options

Australian security agencies may not have approved tighter citizenship laws | The Guardian

Not going well (with good reason):

Immigration officials have been unable to say whether they gained security agency backing for tighter citizenship laws before Peter Dutton announced the controversial overhaul.

The officials told a Senate inquiry in Brisbane they could not confirm whether the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (Asio) or the Australian federal police raised a need for the proposed changes, or were consulted specifically about them before they were unveiled in April.

The Labor senator Murray Watt seized on the testimony on Thursday as “evidence that shows very clearly there is no national security case for a tightening of the citizenship laws”.

Watt told the Guardian: “Peter Dutton’s own department was unable to produce any evidence that any national security agency had asked for these changes.”

The department also confirmed it knew before the announcement that people who completed the government-funded Adult Migrant English Program (Amep) would still fall short of the university-level English required under the new legislation.

“I think it’s bizarre that we have a government-funded program to help train people in English that will not even be able to provide the level required from the government’s own citizenship test,” Watt said.

David Wilden, a first assistant secretary at the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, told the inquiry he could not “give a definitive answer” to whether Asio gave any advice that tougher citizenship rules were needed to protect national security.

“I’d have to check, I don’t think we went to a specific piece of advice on this bill,” he said, adding the department had ongoing dialogues with the intelligence agency.

Linda Geddes, an acting secretary of the department, said it was the same case with the AFP.

When Watts asked whether the department had consulted either agency specifically on the bill, Wilden said he was unsure and would try to find an answer before the deadline for committee submissions on Friday.

The final day of hearings by the Senate legal and constitutional affairs legislation committee came after the inquiry having received more than 10,000 submissions against Dutton’s proposal.

Only two were in favour: from Dutton’s own department, and the Australian Monarchist League. The committee is due to report next Tuesday.

The immigration officials at the inquiry said the department had considered the fact that most people completing Amep would be at level 4 or 4.5 under the international English-language testing system (Ielts), short of the level 6 required for citizenship.

Wilden said these people would need to show “self-agency” and further their own English study to meet the new mark.

The Labor frontbencher Tony Burke told the Guardian he was “now confident the bill won’t be passed in its current form but I’m not yet confident” it would be rejected in the Senate, as Labor hoped.

When Watt read out a section of the Ielts test relating to Herodotus’ 480BC account of calisthenics at the battle of Thermopylae, “the whole room fell about laughing at just how ridiculous the level of language required was”, Burke said.

“People laughed, and then they reflected on it, and then the frustration started to take over the room when people realised exactly what that would mean in their own instances,” he said. “There was a despondency of people saying, if that’s the new rule, I’ll never become a citizen.”

Source: Australian security agencies may not have approved tighter citizenship laws | Australia news | The Guardian

Australia: Coalition warned it has ‘uphill battle’ in high court over citizenship and postal vote | The Guardian

As noted, only reasonable solution in an immigration-based country is to repeal section 44 and allow dual citizenship:

The government faces an “uphill battle” in major high court cases dealing with the same-sex marriage postal survey and the eligibility of seven parliamentarians on the current reading of the law, George Williams has warned.

In a speech to the National Press Club on Wednesday, the constitutional law expert and University of NSW professor accused the government of “a surprising constitutional adventurism” in testing the limits of its power and relying on a “creative, quite liberal and generous reading of those powers” by the court.

In October the high court will hear the cases challenging the eligibility of the deputy prime minister, Barnaby Joyce, the Nationals senator Matt Canavan, the resigned Greens senators Scott Ludlam and Larissa Waters, and the One Nation senator Malcolm Roberts. Nick Xenophon and Fiona Nash will also be referred.

Williams said that “on the current law it is difficult to see … that any of the seven parliamentarians who will face the high court are likely to survive that challenge”.

“It is hard to see any of them have taken the reasonable steps that the high court requires to divest themselves of foreign citizenship.”

Williams suggested Labor’s Katy Gallagher could also be in difficulty, depending on the high court ruling, and likened citizenship by descent to a “Pandora’s box” that could claim up to “20 or more parliamentarians”.

Section 44 of the constitution disqualifies anyone who “is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power” from sitting in parliament.

The Turnbull government insists it has strong legal advice from the solicitor general that the better view of the law is that some element of intention or acquiescence to foreign citizenship is required.

Williams warned that view was based on William Dean’s dissent in the case of Sykes v Cleary and it was “exceedingly rare” for a later court to adopt a dissenting view.

Another possible reading – to exclude only those members who have foreign citizenship by birth – had no support in the constitution, he said.

Williams said Joyce’s and the Greens’ eligibility problems “speak less of a constitutional problem … and more of complacency and poor vetting” by political parties. He cited a simple check he had performed online to confirm a person in Joyce’s situation was a New Zealand citizen by descent.

“In this case it is hard to see why the high court would fashion an exemption when candidates have been warned of this problem and when the information is very easy to obtain through a simple check on the internet.”

Williams described Malcolm Turnbull’s confidence that the high court will find Joyce eligible as “misplaced”.

Williams said section 44 was out of date, arguing it was “hardly consistent with our sovereignty, our stability as a democracy” to allow eligibility for parliament to be determined by other countries’ laws.

Source: Coalition warned it has ‘uphill battle’ in high court over citizenship and postal vote | Australia news | The Guardian

Myanmar: Annan report calls for review of 1982 Citizenship Law 

Ongoing issue, one that reflects poorly on Myanmar:

An advisory commission tasked with finding sustainable solutions in Rakhine State has submitted its final report to the government, where it called for freedom of movement for all people in Rakhine and a review of the controversial 1982 Citizenship Law.

The Advisory Commission on Rakhine State, headed by former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, was formed by State Counsellor Daw Aung San Suu Kyi in September 2016. It was formed by the October 9 attacks in northern Rakhine State, which led to a military crackdown that has come with allegations of human rights violations.

An estimated 1.1 million Muslims – many who identify as Rohingya, a term the government rejects – are denied access to citizenship in line with the citizenship law, which was enacted by former dictator U Ne Win. The law does not recognise the Rohingya as one of the country’s 135 recognised ethnic groups.

The commission’s report, released on Thursday, urged the government to bring the law in line with international standards and abolish “different distinctions between different types of citizens”. The law currently recognises full citizens, associate citizens and naturalised citizens.

The report also urged the commission to begin a process to review the citizenship law “to ensure the equitable treatment of all citizens”.

Many of the Rohingya in the state face severe restrictions on movements, and while the commission acknowledged recent efforts by the government to improve freedom of movement in the north of the state, it said it had only effected those holding the correct identification.

“To have greater impact, freedom of movement should be delinked from the citizenship verification process, meaning that all individuals in Rakhine State should be able to move freely irrespective of whether they hold an NVC [National Verification Card], NRC card [National Registration Card] or citizenship documentation, consistent with the basic right of all people to free movement,” the report said.

An estimated 120,000 Muslims are confined to IDP camps in Rakhine, many without access to basic livelihoods such as education, healthcare and livelihoods. The report said that efforts to allow the return of people home has “shown little progress”, and called on the government to develop a “comprehensive strategy towards closing all IDP camps” in the state.

It said the process should be developed through consultation with affected communities and should have clear timelines, adding that all returns and relocations must be voluntary and should allow people to return to their place of origin as a priority.

In the interim, it suggested improving shelter, water, sanitation and livelihoods in the IDP camps.

In northern Rakhine State, humanitarian and media access has largely been cut off since the October attacks, and the commission urged the government to ensure full and regular access to all parts of the state.

The military has been accused of using disproportionate force in its operations, including allegations of mass rape, extrajudicial killing and torture. The government and military have continuously denied all charges.

In March, the UN Human Rights Council passed a resolution to form an investigation team to probe rights abuses in Myanmar, with a particular focus on Rakhine. However, the Myanmar government has denied visas to its members.

The commission called for an “independent and impartial investigation” into the facts on the ground in order to ensure that those who conducted violations are held accountable.

Additionally, the commission called on the government form a ministry tasked solely with implementing its recommendations. It said the appointment should inintially be a one-year appointment and deliver public quarterly reports.

“The secretariat’s staff should be in permanent consultation with groups in Rakhine State in the implementation of its work,” the commission said.

Source: Annan report calls for review of 1982 Citizenship Law | Frontier Myanmar

Canadian citizenship grant upheld for immigrant doctor living in the U.S.

Interesting case, under pre-C-24 rules before residency was more tightly defined as requiring physical presence. While C-6 reduces the residency time requirements, it rightly maintains the physical presence definition:

An immigrant doctor doing medical training in the United States can keep his Canadian citizenship even though he had spent far fewer days in Canada than normally required to become a citizen, Federal Court has ruled.

In rejecting an appeal from the federal government, Judge Susan Elliott found no reason to undo an earlier decision to allow Irfan Saddique to become a Canadian.

Court records show Saddique declared only 177 days of physical presence in Canada when he applied to become a citizen, well short of the required 1,095 days. Normally, that would have disqualified his application.

However, Saddique argued successfully before a citizenship judge in January that he had been forced to move to the U.S. for his medical residency so he could earn the credentials he needed to work as a doctor in Canada.

After examining the case, the citizenship judge found that Saddique had maintained his “centralized mode” of living in Canada and allowed him to become a Canadian.

The minister of citizenship and immigration appealed to Federal Court, arguing the judge’s decision was unreasonable.

Among other things, the government faulted the judge for failing to analyze whether Saddique had already established residence in Canada before he left for the United States to continue his training, and said the evidence he provided about his ties to Canada was inadequate.

“As I understand the minister’s position, it is akin to an adequacy-of-reasons argument and, despite protestations to the contrary, there are elements of asking the court to reweigh the evidence,” Elliott said in her ruling. “By reason of their special knowledge and expertise, citizenship judges are owed a degree of deference in the application of the test they choose and the assessment of the evidence placed before them.”

Saddique, who is from Pakistan, in turn argued the judge had considered his circumstances carefully, and correctly applied the legal test for residency.

He maintained he would have preferred to do his medical residency in Canada but had been unable to obtain a position, and therefore had no choice but to go to the United States.

He said he had as many as 50 relatives in Ontario, including a Canadian wife, maintained a home in Brampton, Ont., and planned to live permanently in Canada as soon as his medical-licensing process was done.

In siding with him, Elliott said the citizenship judge had taken into account several factors in determining Saddique’s residency, including that he had tried for a medical position in Canada, had maintained strong family ties in this country, and returned whenever he could.

As such, the judge who saw and heard Saddique applied the facts to the law, using the expertise she had gained, Elliott said.

“I am satisfied that the decision is intelligible and transparent,” Elliott ruled. “The outcome is supported by the evidence in the record. It is defensible on the facts and law.”

Source: Canadian citizenship grant upheld for immigrant doctor living in the U.S. | rdnewsNOW

Citizenship changes are risky, says Australian Human Rights Commission | The Guardian

Valid reservations, with clear impact on some groups:

The Australian Human Rights Commission has warned the Turnbull government to tread carefully with its citizenship changes, saying the Coalition needs to be mindful of a perception Australia is departing from a non-discriminatory immigration policy.

Members of the commission, including the new president, Rosalind Croucher, appeared before a Senate committee on Wednesday to outline concerns they had about the controversial citizenship overhaul being proposed by the immigration minister, Peter Dutton.

The race discrimination commissioner, Tim Soutphommasane, told the committee Australia was a remarkable international success story when it came to the integration of immigrants, and he said if changes were contemplated to the citizenship regime, the case needed to be “compelling”.

He said there was a danger of the government sending a negative signal with onerous new requirements, including an English test requiring university-level language proficiency, which could deter people from taking out Australian citizenship.

“Care must be taken to ensure the wrong signal isn’t sent,” Soutphommasane told the committee.

The race discrimination commissioner also argued the task of managing civic integration was not one that should be confined to aspiring Australian citizens. He suggested there was also scope for improving the civic literacy of Australian-born citizens.

The Turnbull government proposal, which has been badged a national security measure, makes a number of changes to the current citizenship regime.

The legislation extends permanent residency requirements from one year to “at least four years” before someone can apply for citizenship and requires most applicants to provide evidence of “competent” English-language proficiency before they can become a citizen.

It would also give the immigration minister power to overrule decisions on citizenship applications by the administrative appeals tribunal if the minister didn’t think the decisions were in the national interest, and also give the minister power to decide whether or not the applicant had integrated into the Australian community.

A written submission from the AHRC to the Senate committee examining the legislation recommends that the government’s proposal not be passed in its current form.

It says the government proposal will make it harder for a number of vulnerable groups to become Australian citizens, including children born in Australia to asylum seeker or refugee parents, even after those children have been lawfully in Australia for up to a decade.

“These proposed sections would deny citizenship by birth to certain children born in Australia solely based on the immigration status of the child’s parents,” the submission says.

“The child may have held valid visas and been lawfully present in Australia for his or her entire life, but will be denied citizenship under the 10-year rule because his or her parents arrived in Australia without a valid visa”.

As well as raising concerns about the impact of the citizenship overhaul on children, and people with disabilities, the submission also says the harder English language test will have a “considerable” impact.

The submission notes many Australia-born citizens “would not possess a written or spoken command of English equivalent to this standard”.

It is unclear whether the government’s overhaul will pass the parliament. Labor has raised substantial objections, and the Nick Xenophon Team has also raised concerns about the impact of particular measures.

Source: Citizenship changes are risky, says Australian Human Rights Commission | Australia news | The Guardian

Globe editorial: Ottawa should stop politicizing the citizenship guide

If only …

But even a neutral body would have a challenge drafting a text that would be viewed as neutral by all:

Immigrants who want to become citizens of Canada have to pass a test demonstrating a basic knowledge of this country. To prepare for the test, the federal government provides a study guide filled with facts, names, dates and – these days – subtle little plugs for the party in power.

It’s sad, really. After reading the current version of the guide prepared by the Harper government and parts of a draft of the new one coming any minute now from the Trudeau government, one is left with the impression that the chief goal of the exercise isn’t to help newcomers be better citizens but, rather, to tickle the biases of the governing party’s supporters.

Take the Harper version. It tells newcomers that Canadian law prohibits “barbaric cultural practices that tolerate spousal abuse, ‘honour killings,’ female genital mutilation, forced marriage or other gender-based violence.”

It also says that one of the chief responsibilities of citizenship, along with obeying the law and serving on juries, is “getting a job, taking care of one’s family and working hard.”

Conservative voters reading this are going, What’s wrong with either of those things? Liberal voters, on the other hand, are going, Typical Conservative bashing of immigrants’ culture and work ethic!

Which explains why, under the Liberals, the references to barbaric cultural practices and the responsibility of getting a job aren’t in a draft of the new guide obtained by the Canadian Press.

Can you guess what Trudeau government canon will soon be included in the “mandatory” responsibilities of citizenship, along with obeying the law and doing jury duty?

Filling out the census and respecting treaties with Indigenous peoples, that’s what.

If the NDP ever gets into power, we swear the guide will be re-written to say that supporting the right to collective bargaining is a responsibility of Canadian citizenship, and that the colour orange isn’t just for Halloween anymore.

The guide has become a silly competition, with successive governing parties redefining the obligations of citizenship along ideological lines. Citizenship – this country’s greatest gift – should be less fickle than that.

Ottawa should give the job of writing the guide to a neutral body, and leave the politicking to election campaigns.

Source: Globe editorial: Ottawa should stop politicizing the citizenship guide – The Globe and Mail

International adoptions decline dramatically in Canada

An under-looked issue – the decline in the number of international options.

The previous government passed legislation granting citizenship to those adopted internationally (rather than through permanent residency) given considerable advocacy at the time by parents of internationally adopted children:

The number of international adoptions has declined dramatically in Canada in the last five years due to tighter country controls, exorbitant costs and alternative routes to parenthood.

Last year, there were only 793 international adoptions in Canada, according to data from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC). That’s the lowest number in decades, and nearly half the total from 2012, when there were 1,379 inter-country adoptions.

Deborah Brennan, chair of the Adoption Council of Canada, points to a number of factors driving the downward trend. These include hefty costs (an international adoption can cost up to $50,000) and an increasingly onerous administrative process that can take anywhere from 18 months to several years.

A growing number of countries have imposed restrictions or all-out bans on international adoptions, and many have developed stronger systems to encourage more adoptions within their own borders.

“I think they are paying more attention to making sure they create an infrastructure within their own country where they can take care of their children themselves,” Brennan said.

She sees the trend as potentially positive for adoptee children, because remaining in their countries of origin helps ensure their family connections, culture and ethnicity are not lost.

International adoptions in Canada

“Our preference is that kids do stay … in their own countries of origin because it is risky for kids to come here and lose that. Many parents who adopt internationally, in my opinion, can sometimes do not a great job of maintaining those ties and those roots,” she said.

More domestic adoptions?

While Canadians are increasingly using other ways to have a family, including surrogacy and in vitro fertilization, Brennan hopes fewer international adoptions will mean more domestic adoptions in Canada.

Right now, more than 30,000 children are available for adoption around the country.

Many of them are over six years old, are in sibling groups or are have visible special needs. Brennan said a big part of the problem with matching parents with children is a lack of social workers and a huge gap in the inter-provincial adoption system.

In 1993, the Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption imposed strict safeguards to make sure all adoptions were in the best interests of the child. It also adopted new measures to crack down on the abduction, sale and trafficking of children.

Some provincial and territorial authorities have imposed suspensions on certain countries of origin including:

  • Cambodia.
  • Georgia.
  • Guatemala.
  • Liberia.
  • Nepal.

Data shows that the number of international adoptions to Canada remained high in the aftermath of the Hague convention, with moderate fluctuations between 1999 and 2009 that ranged from 1,535 to 2,127.

Source: International adoptions decline dramatically in Canada – Politics – CBC News

Proposed citizenship test guide will only mislead new Canadians: Tom Flanagan

Focused commentary by Flanagan on how Indigenous obligations are reflected in the current language of the draft new citizenship study guide (Discover Canada).

Surprising he did not mention the planned revision to the oath (TRC recommendation 94) that will include: “I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada including Treaties with Indigenous Peoples.”

The federal government is currently working on a revision of Discover Canada, the study guide for the test that immigrants must pass before obtaining citizenship. To judge from a recent Canadian Press story, the new manual will read like a Liberal campaign platform. Perhaps that’s not surprising, because the Liberals control the government. Maybe it’s even fair, because the Conservatives revised the manual in 2011, when they controlled the government. But it would be nice if those who are politicizing the Canadian citizenship manual would at least represent Canadian law accurately.

According to The Canadian Press, the draft revision says, “Today, Canadians, for example, can own their own homes and buy land thanks to treaties that the government negotiated.” But a moment’s reflection shows that this statement can’t be correct. Land-cession treaties have never been negotiated in the Atlantic provinces, most of Quebec, and most of British Columbia. Yet, Canadians can own homes and buy land in those provinces, just as they can in Ontario and the Prairie provinces, where land-cession treaties were signed with First Nations.

The ability of Canadians to own land and homes depends upon grants of land from the sovereign. In the English legal tradition, sovereignty includes the title to land, which the sovereign can subsequently grant to individuals or corporations. Modern Canadian sovereignty rests upon earlier French and British sovereignty, founded upon discovery, (occasional) conquest, establishment of governments able to enforce territorial boundaries and administer law and recognition by other sovereign states.

Even while recognizing Indigenous land rights, including full ownership in certain circumstances, the Supreme Court of Canada has consistently upheld Canadian sovereignty as the basis of the Constitution. Chief Justice Antonio Lamer in Van der Peet phrased this as “the reconciliation of the pre-existence of aboriginal societies with the sovereignty of the Crown.” From the beginning, French, British and Canadian sovereigns have made grants of land upon which our system of private land ownership has developed. Those grants did not depend upon prior negotiation of treaties with First Nations, otherwise there would be no private property today in much of Canada.

Ironically, private property in land does not exist on most Indigenous reserves today. That deficiency in the Indian Act is only one of the many ways in which the property rights of First Nations have been abused. But mistakes in that area do not mean the private-property rights of other Canadians depend upon treaties.

Another misleading statement in the revision is this advice to new Canadians about their legal obligations: “Obeying the law, serving on a jury, paying taxes, filling out the census and respecting treaties with Indigenous Peoples are mandatory.” But treaties were legal agreements between the Crown (advised by cabinet) and First Nations (represented by their chiefs). They imposed obligations on the Crown to set aside land and provide assistance of various types. But they don’t impose any specific obligations upon citizens other than the general obligation to obey the law, which incidentally is also imposed upon First Nations by the text of the treaties.

These wording changes, if the government follows through with them, won’t have any immediate legal effect. But we should be clear about what’s happening. In the past election campaign, the Liberals made many irredeemable promises to Indigenous voters, such as adopting the United Nations Declaration of Indigenous Rights. Now, instead of impossible legal changes, they are offering words – and words matter in the long run. As the great philosopher Thomas Hobbes wrote, “Words are wise men’s counters, they do but reckon with them, but they are the money of fools.” These foolish words will tend to make new Canadians, and indeed all Canadians, feel like interlopers in their own country.

Source: Proposed citizenship test guide will only mislead new Canadians – The Globe and Mail