The US Anti-Birthright Citizenship Brigade | Mother Jones

2015/08/31 Leave a comment

Background on some of the lawyers arguing that the 14th Amendment does not provide for birthright citizenship:

Eastman and Graglia, however, may not be the best proponents of their theory. Both have a history of controversial comments and opinions that make them easy prey for Democrats. Eastman, a professor at Chapman University School of Law in California, is the chairman of the National Organization for Marriage, a group that fought bitterly against same-sex marriage, and he once equated homosexuality with “barbarism.” Graglia, of the University of Texas at Austin’s law school, is a longtime opponent of affirmative action and busing programs. His comment in 1997 that black and Hispanic students “are not academically competitive with whites” earned him the moniker “the most controversial law professor in America.”

At April’s hearing, instead of inquiring about Graglia’s views on the Citizenship Clause, Democrats on the committee instead grilled him on these past statements and entered old articles about them into the record. For a Republican Party that hopes to appeal to Hispanic voters in particular, Graglia may not be the best ambassador on the citizenship debate, which many already find offensive. In recent years, the first people to introduce the idea that birthright citizenship is more limited than is commonly understood were two professors, Peter Schuck of Yale Law School and Rogers Smith of the University of Pennsylvania, who argued in a 1985 book that Congress could exclude the children of undocumented immigrants from automatic citizenship.

While they hold to that belief today, they don’t seem particularly pleased with the Pandora’s Box they opened. “This is just NOT an issue that should be occupying the country’s attention at this moment, if ever,” Smith said in an email. “We have far, far more important problems to deal with that we are not addressing, including mounting economic inequalities, persisting racial inequalities, environmental degradation, crumbling infrastructure, a crippled labor movement. That’s why I rarely talk about the issue these days. I believe very strongly that our focus should be elsewhere.”

Source: The Anti-Birthright Citizenship Brigade | Mother Jones

Filed under Birthright Citizenship, Citizenship Tagged with , ,

Why Dropping ‘Anchor Baby’ Is a Problem for US Politicians | TIME

2015/08/28 Leave a comment

Good article on the history of the term “anchor babies” in the US, and how it has evolved into an offensive term (in Canada, the term generally used is birth tourism, where the numbers are tiny):

This about-face stirred debates about who should decide what’s offensive and who shouldn’t. Was an American institution kowtowing to liberals? Or was a dictionary being descriptive about how a word is truly perceived among English-speakers? When Oxford Dictionaries quietly added their definition after that controversy settled, they tagged it with a bright orange offensive label. Those signs are, Oxford editor Katherine Martin says, not chosen by lexicographers making emotional decrees but affixed as guidance for people who want to use the language intelligently.

Often when language gets accused of being offensive, public figures and media shift to more neutral ground, which can lead to some exhausting phrasing. (When the AP banned their journalists from using undocumented immigrant and illegal immigrant, for instance, standards editor Tom Kent suggested to TIME that a more precise description might be “foreigners in the United States in violation of the law.”)

Martin says one problem with anchor baby is that there is no natural alternative, overwrought or otherwise—and not for the neutral reason suggested by Bush, whether or not he meant to insult anyone. “There is no neutral term for this because it is a term that is intended to be derogatory,” she says.

One indication of that intention, as the Washington Post‘s Amber Phillips points out, is that the idea it describes doesn’t entirely make sense in practice. As TIME explained in 2011, “the law says the parents of such a child must wait till she is 21 for her to be allowed to sponsor them to live and work legally in the U.S., and research shows that the vast majority of children of illegal immigrants are born years after the mother and father have arrived in the U.S.”

Regardless, the phrase has stuck. And, while debate over its use can actually lead to discussion of important issues like candidates’ positions on birthright citizenship (Bush is for it; Donald Trump, who also uses the term, is against it), that stickiness is just one more reason for conscientious politicians to steer clear of it, says linguist Zimmer. “The difficulty is that those pithy words and phrases are much more memorable and work their way into the public consciousness,” he says. “And once they’re there, they are difficult to dislodge.”

Source: Why Dropping ‘Anchor Baby’ Is a Problem for Politicians | TIME

Filed under Birthright Citizenship, Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

National Post View: Are Republican candidates actually on to something about “anchor babies”? | National Post

2015/08/27 Leave a comment

National Post Editorial on the US debate in the Republican primaries on  birth tourism (‘anchor babies’) and implications for Canada:

We aren’t endorsing any policy change here, but would simply point out that birthright citizenship is not the gold standard of fairness many might believe. As with the United States, changing the status quo would involve great expense and effort, making it of questionable pragmatic value. But in principle, the GOP candidates have a point: in a liberal democracy, the right of citizenship should be based on actual connection to the country in question, not a mere reflection of where one happened to be born.

The editorial ignores that CIC and provincial evidence shows this is a minimal issue in terms of numbers (see my earlier article of a year ago in the Hill Times What happened to Kenney’s cracking down on birth tourism? Feds couldn’t do it alone):

Officials could only identify about 500 cases of suspected birth tourism out of an annual average of some 360,000 live births in Canada, or 0.14 per cent.

CIC public consultations in  2013 resulted only in more anecdotes, not hard evidence.

Evidence-based editorials please!

National Post View: Are Republican candidates actually on to something about “anchor babies”? | National Post.

Filed under Birthright Citizenship, Citizenship Tagged with

Donald Savoie: How government went off the rails

2015/08/24 Leave a comment

Donald Savoie confirms the policy/service delivery hierarchy.

My experience when Service Canada was established, and then watching how the both the Government and the public service whittled away at the vision of making service as important as policy, is a case in point.

Another example was Citizenship and Immigration Canada’s inability in 2010-12 to implement a series of inter-related changes – new citizenship test, language assessment process, anti-fraud efforts and program review cuts to the regions – which resulted in a dramatic fall in the number of new citizens:

Below the fault line is where government is coming up short, often because the ones operating above it have no appreciation of how the machinery operates. It is also where the great majority of Canadians deal with their government. The view among politicians and the courts is that government is about 90 per cent ideas and 10 per cent implementation. Making a policy or program announcement, defining the right media line and keeping an eye on the blame game as it is played out in Parliament and the media are what truly matters. They expect that program managers below the fault line should simply run on their tracks and avoid providing fodder for the blame game. The view among the majority of Canadians and front-line government workers, however, is that government should be 90 per cent delivering services efficiently and 10 per cent ideas. Canadians are too often left waiting, for an hour or so, to talk to someone after calling a 1-800 number, days to get a phone call returned or weeks to get an answer to what they regard as a straightforward question.

Not only have we overloaded the machinery, we have also misdiagnosed the patient. The thinking that we could somehow make the public sector as efficient as the private sector was misguided, costly and counterproductive. The thinking conveniently overlooks the fact that the public and private sectors are different in both important and unimportant ways. Consider the following: 76 per cent of public-sector employees belong to a union versus 16 per cent for the private sector. The blame game plays very differently in both sectors and the private sector has an unrelenting bottom line, while the public sector has none, or rather has a top line called the prime minister, Parliament and the media. In the private sector, good managers learn to delegate down. In the public sector, good managers learn to delegate up.

In the search for a bottom line, governments have created an abundance of oversight bodies, management constraint measures and vapid performance and evaluation reports. It has only made the machinery of government thicker, more risk-averse and created a veritable army of public servants kept busy turning a crank not attached to anything. It has also given rise to a serious morale problem in the public service.

This is not an indictment on what government tried to do or on the role of government in modern society but rather how the government tried to do it. Thinking that you can simply pile on responsibilities to the existing machinery and somehow emulate private-sector management practices while retaining the command and control approach to operation is where things went off the rails.

  Donald Savoie: How government went off the rails  

Filed under Citizenship, Government Tagged with ,

Court challenge slams new Citizenship Act as ‘anti-Canadian’

2015/08/21 Leave a comment

The expected court challenge by BCCLA and CARL. We will see whether or not the assertions of the Government regarding these changes to the Citizenship Act being constitutional hold water:

This citizenship-stripping law is unjust, legally unsound and violates the core values of equality enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms,” says Toronto lawyer Lorne Waldman, one of the litigators handling the case and a member of the executive of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers.

“With this law the federal government shows a flagrant disregard for these values, and for the basic rights of all Canadians. We are asking the court to strike the law down.”

The Minister of Immigration Chris Alexander vigorously defended Bill C-24 both when it was first introduced and as it was debated in Parliament.

…“The value of citizenship has never been more widely recognized as it is today, but it only has value because there are rules governing it,” Alexander told the Star last year, rejecting the growing criticism and opposition to the act.

“Citizenship of course involves rights and enormous privileges in Canada, but it also, for those of us born here and for naturalized Canadians, involves responsibilities.

“This act reminds us where we come from and why citizenship has value. When we take on the obligations of citizens we’re following in the footsteps of millions of people who came here and made outstanding contributions over centuries. And we’re celebrating that diversity, solidifying the order and rule of law we have here.”

But according to Waldman, the law doesn’t do that at all, but rather creates two classes of citizens, a profoundly unfair process and exposes many Canadians to not only losing their citizenship without due process but also their rights to move and travel out of the country.

…“All Canadian citizens used to have the same citizenship rights, no matter what their origins,” says Josh Paterson, executive director of the BCCLA. “Now this new law has divided us into classes of citizens — those who can lose their citizenship and those who can’t. Bill C-24 is anti-immigrant, anti-Canadian, and anti-democratic. It undermines — quite literally — what it means to be Canadian.”

This is fundamentally an issue of equality, Paterson says in an interview with the Star.

Court challenge slams new Citizenship Act as ‘anti-Canadian’ | Toronto Star.

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with , , ,

OCASI Questions for political parties General Election 2015 | OCASI

2015/08/14 Leave a comment

Imagine we will see more of these as the election draws closer. Will be interesting to compare these with political party platforms when released and degree to which citizenship and immigration-related issues make it into the platforms:

1. Settlement Services

Settlement service is an important resource that helps refugees and immigrants to make a strong start in their new life in Canada. This year, the Government of Canada cut $14 million from immigrant settlement services in Ontario. Ontario has already faced cuts to settlement funding almost every year since 2010, affecting the capacity of community-based organizations that deliver these programs to maintain organizational stability and excellence in quality of service. The federal government no longer has immigration agreements with the provinces and territories, except in Quebec.

Question: How will you support the immigrant and refugee serving-sector to deliver appropriate settlement services to immigrants and refugees, and support them to reach their full social, political and economic potential?

2. Employment

There is extensive research documenting the chronic underemployment of skilled immigrants in Canada, as well as research to show the strong correlation between racialization and the growing wage gap in the labour market i. Recent (past ten years) immigrants at all skill levels (internationally and locally trained professionals, tradespeople, lower-skilled dependents) are facing higher levels of un/under-employment compared to earlier cohorts, and compared to those born in Canada. For many, re-training, re-qualifying and licensing in Canada have not resulted in a significant change in job or wage prospects, and discrimination continues to be a significant barrier – particularly for racialized immigrants and refugees. This represents a significant missed opportunity for our economy and tremendous personal cost to the affected individuals and their communities.

Question: What will you do to improve the employment prospects, and pay parity for immigrants at all skill levels?

3. Citizenship

Only 26 per cent of permanent residents who settled in Canada in 2008 acquired Canadian citizenship, compared with 44 per cent for immigrant who arrived in 2007 and 79 percent for those who arrived in 2000.[Note: The updated numbers – full 2014 data – are somewhat better but reflect the same trend. 49 percent of those who settled in 2008, 57 percent who landed in 2007.]  These are the findings of research on citizenship acquisition released earlier this year ii. Access to citizenship has become more restricted, and naturalized citizens and those with dual citizenship are treated differently under the law.

Question: How will you ensure access to citizenship and exercise of citizenship is equitable?

4. Refugee sponsorship

59.5 million people worldwide were forcibly displaced as a result of war and persecution by the end of 2014 according to the UNHCR iii – the highest level ever recorded. A year earlier the number was 51.2 million. Canada’s Government Assisted Refugees program numbers have fallen by almost 22% in the ten years since 2004, and by 24% for all refugee programs iv.

Question: What will you do to increase the number of Government Assisted Refugees (GARs) over and above the current numbers, and to welcome more refugees to Canada through all the programs?

5. Migrant Workers

Canada has relied for decades on migrant workers to support and sustain our economy. In previous years, migrant workers in all occupations and sectors were allowed to stay and build a new life in Canada for themselves and their families. In recent years while migrant workers are recruited to work in almost all sectors and occupations only some are allowed to stay. The most recent change has further restricted the pathway to permanent residency for Caregivers and Domestic workers who arrived through what was known as the Live-in Caregiver Program until December 2014.

Question: What will you do to provide a pathway to permanent residency to all migrant workers, including those recruited through the Temporary Foreign Worker, International Mobility and Seasonal Agricultural Worker programs?

6. Family reunification

Family reunification is a pillar of Canada’s immigration program. Changes to legislation and policy in recent years combined with existing barriers are contributing to an increase in prolonged and sometimes indefinite delays in reunification. They include a narrow definition of family (example: non-biological children are not included), a category of “excluded family members, lower maximum age of a “dependent child” who can be sponsored, limitations on reunifying with parents and grandparents and more. Refugees and immigrants, particularly those from the Global South are subject to greater scrutiny and are among those most affected. Between 2010 and 2013, family reunification reduced by 15% v.

Question: What will you do to remove barriers to family reunification and allow all categories of family members to reunite in Canada?

7. Residents without Immigration Status

Canada has a large and growing number of residents without full immigration status. The growth in this population has resulted in part from gaps in immigration and refugee policies and practice and a massive growth in migrant workers, who also happen to be vulnerable to exploitation and abuse. Residents without immigrant status are a part of our economy and our communities. Most do not qualify for any form of government assistance, and support themselves and their families through their own efforts. They pay taxes without receiving the full benefit of legal resident status.

Question: What is your position on the regularization of residents without full immigration status?

OCASI Questions for political parties General Election 2015 | OCASI.

Filed under Citizenship, Immigration Tagged with , ,

Multiculturalism in Canada: Evidence and Anecdote – Now Available in Print

2015/08/11 Leave a comment

For those interesting, my book is now available in print at a price of $39.00 directly from Lulu (direct link here) in addition to the pdf version at $3.99 (direct link here). The print version should become available through the usual on-line distributors in 6-8 weeks.

My personal preference is for the pdf version, given the charts are best in colour although I did optimize the print black-and-white charts as much as I could.

But doing the final review of the proof copy today, there is something oddly satisfying of holding it in one’s hand at last.

Filed under Citizenship, Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

What’s the Right Way to Teach Civics? – The New Yorker

2015/08/11 Leave a comment

Interesting article sent my way by one of my readers, and the US debate over what kind of civics education is likely to be more effective, and some of the politics behind it:

A more common criticism of the civics tests, especially from the left, is that it gives over-tested students yet one more exam to take, meaning that time-crunched educators have less flexibility to develop their own lesson plans. Even some who agree with Riggs that students are undereducated in civics are skeptical that a hundred test questions will solve the problem. It’s also unclear whether the test is the best way to inspire civic-mindedness. Joseph Kahne, an education professor who has studied civic learning, said that, by some measures, young people are woefully disengaged in civic life; for example, they tend to vote at lower rates than older citizens. (To be fair, by other measures—like involvement in their local communities—kids do better than older people.) But research, Kahne said, suggests there are better ways to educate students in civics. He and colleagues have found that when students discuss current events and form their own opinions on hot-button issues, they become more interested and knowledgeable in these topics; also, when students have the chance to volunteer, they become likelier to volunteer in the future. As for the citizenship exam, “What it measures actually isn’t what we care most about,” he said. “It’s a set of disconnected facts. Certainly the questions like, ‘What’s the name of the ocean on the West Coast of the United States?’ aren’t even related to civic and political life.”

Over the next year, Riggs told me, the institute aims to pursue its civic-education initiative in more blue and purple states—places like Iowa, Minnesota, and perhaps Colorado. He has noticed that he and his colleagues have had to work harder, in those kinds of states, to defend their campaign against critics, including those who feel that a new test of factual civics knowledge would give teachers less time to focus on more nuanced aspects of civic education. Riggs argued that the test would complement, rather than replace, higher-level approaches. “It doesn’t impede, and shouldn’t be substituted for, the teaching of more advanced civics,” he told me. “It’s intended to ensure that high-school graduates have at least the basic knowledge of American civics that we require of naturalized citizens.”

In Canada, the extension of the citizenship test to 14-17 year-olds is one manifestation even though the experience of my kids (anecdote warning!) in Ontario was that the half-year civics course in Grade 10 was a reasonable way to engage students (and they had plenty of Canadian history as well).

What’s the Right Way to Teach Civics? – The New Yorker.

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with , ,

Monthly Citizenship Test Pass Rates 2011-2015

2015/08/10 Leave a comment

Citizenship Monthly Test Pass Rates.001This time series shows the variation in monthly citizenship test pass rates from November 2010 to May 2015, highlighting the dramatic shifts over the past 4 ½ years.

This chart highlights a number of challenges that CIC faced:

  • the difficulty in managing the citizenship test to ensure broadly consistent results;
  • the inability to introduce new questions in a predictable manner, likely reflecting political reluctance to engage in focus testing  (2012 drop);
  • the eventual corrective measures in 2013, both administrative and test question wording changes, that resulted in a reversion to the previous average pass rates in the 80-85 percent range; and,
  • other changes, likely reflecting conscious policy choices as part of the effort to address the backlog of citizenship applications, aimed to increase the average pass rate to the 90 percent range in 2014.

This roller-coaster variation, also seen in citizenship applications processed, once again reflects the lessor priority CIC (and Ministers) attach to sound management of the program, in sharp contrast to the relative consistency and predictability of the immigration program.

The relevant memos to the Minister were heavily (excessively in my view) redacted as the following example from a 2013 memo indicates:

Citizenship_Monthly_Test_Results_A201510634_2015-08-06_08-29-32_pdf__page_8_of_13_Lastly, the CIC analysis of the number of those affected by the extension of knowledge testing and language assessment is relatively small: 5.5 percent for 14 to 17 year olds, 5.9 percent for 55 to 64 year olds (both figures for the period 2009-13 (see Citizenship Impact of Extending Testing to 14-17 and 55-64 year olds, while accompanying memo less redacted than above example, still some serious redactions on cost implications and the like).

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with

Ian Mulgrew: Outraged Chapman a tireless crusader for disenfranchised Canadians

2015/08/06 Leave a comment

Profile on citizenship activist Don Chapman and his focus on “Lost Canadians”:

Don Chapman pulled from his backpack books, photocopies of historic documents and legal briefs.

Depending on the moment, he picked them up and brandished them like a club he would use on Ottawa, or as an indictment: “Look at this!”

The airline pilot turned longtime citizenship crusader can’t believe the new Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act is so bad.

While the B.C. Civil Liberties Association and refugee lawyers are preparing a constitutional challenge, Chapman is involved in other court cases and pounding the table to rouse Canadians.

“Nobody paid attention in spite of me screaming and yelling — I was considered a nutcase,” he said about his opposition to the law, substantial portions of which recently came into effect.

It fixed some of the past citizenship anomalies, but it created others and has sparked a lot of concern.

Ian Mulgrew: Outraged Chapman a tireless crusader for disenfranchised Canadians.

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with

← Older posts

Newer posts →