Kansas once required voters to prove citizenship. That didn’t work out so well

Always helpful to consider and learn from earlier attempts:

Republicans made claims about illegal voting by noncitizens a centerpiece of their 2024 campaign messaging and plan to push legislation in the new Congress requiring voters to provide proof of U.S. citizenship. Yet there’s one place with a GOP supermajority where linking voting to citizenship appears to be a nonstarter: Kansas.

That’s because the state has been there, done that, and all but a few Republicans would prefer not to go there again. Kansas imposed a proof-of-citizenship requirement over a decade ago that grew into one of the biggest political fiascos in the state in recent memory.

The law, passed by the state Legislature in 2011 and implemented two years later, ended up blocking the voter registrations of more than 31,000 U.S. citizens who were otherwise eligible to vote. That was 12% of everyone seeking to register in Kansas for the first time. Federal courts ultimately declared the law an unconstitutional burden on voting rights, and it hasn’t been enforced since 2018.

Kansas provides a cautionary tale about how pursuing an election concern that in fact is extremely rarerisks disenfranchising a far greater number of people who are legally entitled to vote. The state’s top elections official, Secretary of State Scott Schwab, championed the idea as a legislator and now says states and the federal government shouldn’t touch it.

“Kansas did that 10 years ago,” said Schwab, a Republican. “It didn’t work out so well.”

Steven Fish, a 45-year-old warehouse worker in eastern Kansas, said he understands the motivation behind the law. In his thinking, the state was like a store owner who fears getting robbed and installs locks. But in 2014, after the birth of his now 11-year-old son inspired him to be “a little more responsible” and follow politics, he didn’t have an acceptable copy of his birth certificate to get registered to vote in Kansas.

“The locks didn’t work,” said Fish, one of nine Kansas residents who sued the state over the law. “You caught a bunch of people who didn’t do anything wrong.”

A small problem, but wide support for a fix

Kansas’ experience appeared to receive little if any attention outside the state as Republicans elsewhere pursued proof-of-citizenship requirements this year.

Arizona enacted a requirement this year, applying it to voting for state and local elections but not for Congress or president. The Republican-led U.S. House passed a proof-of-citizenship requirement in the summer and plans to bring back similar legislation after the GOP won control of the Senate in November.

In Ohio, the Republican secretary of state revised the form that poll workers use for voter eligibility challenges to require those not born in the U.S. to show naturalization papers to cast a regular ballot. A federal judge declined to block the practice days before the election.

Also, sizable majorities of voters in Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Carolina and the presidential swing states of North Carolina and Wisconsin were inspired to amend their state constitutions’ provisions on voting even though the changes were only symbolic. Provisions that previously declared that all U.S. citizens could vote now say that only U.S. citizens can vote — a meaningless distinction with no practical effect on who is eligible.

To be clear, voters already must attest to being U.S. citizens when they register to vote and noncitizens can face fines, prison and deportation if they lie and are caught.

“There is nothing unconstitutional about ensuring that only American citizens can vote in American elections,” U.S. Rep. Chip Roy, of Texas, the leading sponsor of the congressional proposal, said in an email statement to The Associated Press.

Why the courts rejected the Kansas citizenship rule

After Kansas residents challenged their state’s law, both a federal judge and federal appeals court concluded that it violated a law limiting states to collecting only the minimum information needed to determine whether someone is eligible to vote. That’s an issue Congress could resolve.

The courts ruled that with “scant” evidence of an actual problem, Kansas couldn’t justify a law that kept hundreds of eligible citizens from registering for every noncitizen who was improperly registered. A federal judge concluded that the state’s evidence showed that only 39 noncitizens had registered to vote from 1999 through 2012 — an average of just three a year.

In 2013, then-Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, a Republican who had built a national reputation advocating tough immigration laws, described the possibility of voting by immigrants living in the U.S. illegally as a serious threat. He was elected attorney general in 2022 and still strongly backs the idea, arguing that federal court rulings in the Kansas case “almost certainly got it wrong.”

Kobach also said a key issue in the legal challenge — people being unable to fix problems with their registrations within a 90-day window — has probably been solved.

Source: Kansas once required voters to prove citizenship. That didn’t work out so well

USCIS Scraps Naturalization Test Redesign

Of note:

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced it would not move forward with a new version of the naturalization test

In a Federal Register notice published Monday, the agency said it would scrap the redesign after critics said the redesign would create unnecessary barriers, making the process harder for applicants. In 2022, USCIS announced plans to trial a new version of the test after subject matter experts reviewed the current version and suggested changes.

“The objective of the trial was to determine an efficient way to reduce undue barriers to taking the naturalization test and the majority of the feedback received revealed concerns that the trial version of the test may increase burdens on applicants,” the agency said in the notice. “Therefore, USCIS has decided to terminate the previously proposed trial test altogether.”

The citizenship test is one of the final stages of the naturalization process. It consists of two parts: an English test that evaluates an applicant’s reading, writing, and speaking abilities, and a civics test that assesses the applicant’s knowledge of U.S. government and history.

Proposed changes included:

  • For the speaking portion of the test, applicants would be asked to describe three color photographs depicting everyday life, such as the weather or food. Currently, the immigration officer asks the applicant questions about their citizenship application and eligibility to test their speaking ability.
  • During the current civics test, the immigration officer reads questions about U.S. government and history out loud. The applicant must answer six out of 10 questions correctly to pass. As part of the proposed redesign, applicants would instead answer ten multiple-choice questions and select the best answer from four choices. The questions would be displayed on a tablet.

USCIS said it received more than 1,300 public comments about the test redesign, with the majority opposing the changes, arguing the new test would create new barriers to naturalization rather than make the process easier. For the speaking part of the test, commenters said the changes:

  • Introduced a new testing requirement, adding more preparation and tasks for applicants.
  • Offered a less effective way to evaluate English proficiency compared to the current speaking test.

For the civics portion of the test, commenters argued the new version:

  • Required higher-level reading comprehension and vocabulary skills than currently needed.
  • Introduced a multiple-choice format, demanding test-taking skills not previously required.
  • Presented challenges for adult learners with low literacy who rely on oral learning.
  • Created obstacles for individuals without formal education.

USCIS said it will continue to use the 2008 version of the naturalization test.

Source: USCIS Scraps Naturalization Test Redesign

2024 Looking Back, 2025 Looking Forward

That time of year to look back on my articles and commentary, and look forward to what will likely be my focus in the coming year.

Best wishes for the holidays and the new year, when I will restart my blog.

In addition to my news clipping in Multicultural Meanderings, the majority of my writing focused on citizenship issues, given C-71 and some data projects that I have worked on.

Citizenship

Bill C-71: The need for a timeframe limit (submission to Senate SOCI, 2024)

Bill C-71 opens up a possible never-ending chain of citizenship (Policy Options, 2024)

What citizenship applications tell us about policy implementation (Hill Times, 2024) (paywall, unpaywalled version https://multiculturalmeanderings.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=74476&action=edit

Naturalization Visualized: A Study of Canadian Citizenship Data (Institute for Canadian Citizenship, 2024)

Time to take citizenship seriously in ‘I Am Canadian’ – Or Not: Essay Collection (ACS, 2024)

Other

Misleading Canadians: The Flawed Assumption Behind the Government’s Planned Reduction in Temporary Residents (LinkedIn, 2024)

Anti-hate initiatives have not been able to stop the surge in crimes (Policy Options, 2024)

How diverse are Order of Canada appointments? (Policy Options, 2024)

Executive Diversity within the Public Service: An Accelerating Trend (Hill Times, 2024). Unpaywalled: https://multiculturalmeanderings.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=72434&action=edit

New electoral map and diversity (The Hill Times, 2024) Not paywall protected

Preparing for a Conservative government in the public service (Policy Options, 2024)

Most popular posts on LinkedIn:


What a Conservative government might change in immigration, citizenship and employment equity

Employment Equity in the Public Service of Canada 2022-23: Preliminary Observations

Explaining the decline in national pride in Canada

Clark: It’s too late for universities and colleges to complain about the foreign student cap

Keller: Thanks to Marc Miller, the immigration system is (slightly) less broken, Clark: Ottawa finally acts on international student visas, setting a challenge for Doug Ford

Clear majority of Canadians say there is too much immigration, new poll suggests

Immigration Minister urged to crack down on international student ‘no shows’ at colleges

Preparing for a Conservative government in the public service

Misleading Canadians: The Flawed Assumption Behind the Government’s Planned Reduction in Temporary Residents

Flawed Assumptions and Misleading Information: Outflows

Looking ahead to 2025, I expect that birth tourism will become an issue again given president-elect Trump’s planned actions and likely ensuing litigation.

Given the likely earlier demise of the Liberal government, unlikely that C-71 will make it through the process, leaving a vacuum for the expected Conservative government to address.

The impact of an expected Conservative government on a range of immigration, citizenship and employment equity policies will provide a range of opportunities for commentary and analysis.

Lost Canadians bill could create 115,000 more citizens, says parliamentary budget officer

Hard to know whether my and other critiques over the lack of numbers by the government resulted in PBO doing the needed analysis. Overall population approach versus my mix of the same Statistics Canada study and passport-based approach but responds to the need for estimated numbers. About three times higher than my upper estimate.

The one assumption that may be questionable is to assume that the current average cost of citizenship proofs would apply to all. If there had been a time limit of five years to meet the residency requirement, that would be reasonable. Without the time limit, the share of more complex residency over multiple years and longer periods, would increase the complexity and cost. The PBO itself notes that “the take-up rate may be impacted by different factors which will affect the cost of the billI,” one of which would be the time period under which residency occurred.

It would have been helpful had the PBO provided a breakdown of the 115,000 by separate groups rather than just the overall number (c and d together would form the largest group) as well as more clarity on assumption based numbers (e.g., population growth rate):

  • “a) the number of Canadians by descent born outside of Canada between February 15, 1977 and April 17, 1981 and who have derived their citizenship from a Canadian by descent parent and did not apply to retain their citizenship before the age of 28;
  • b) the children of these persons;
  • c) the children of Canadians by descent who were born after the coming into force of the first-generation limit on citizenship on April 17, 2009; and
  • d) the number of adoptees of Canadians by descent.”

Given the highly uncertain status of the current Parliament following the Freeland letter, questionable whether C-71 will progress but the PBO analysis provides a more informed basis for discussion:

A bill to reinstate rights for what are known as lost Canadians could create around 115,000 new citizens in the next five years, according to a report by the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

The report, published on Thursday, also estimates that it will cost the government $20.8-million over five years to implement the change, with $16.8-million coming in 2025-2026. The PBO presumes the law will come into force in April.

Bill C-71 was introduced by the government earlier this year after an Ontario court ruled it is unconstitutional to deny citizenship to children born overseas to Canadians also born outside the country.

The bill reverses a change by Stephen Harper’s Conservative government in 2009 that stripped children of a Canadian parent born outside Canada of their automatic right to citizenship.

The 2009 change was designed to crack down on what Conservatives called “Canadians of convenience.” It followed an outcry after Canada spent more than $80-million to evacuate 15,000 Canadian citizens from Lebanon in 2006 during the Israel-Hezbollah war.

It has led to Canadians working abroad being denied the right to pass on their citizenship to their children. It has also meant that some “border babies” – born a few kilometres away in the United States – and Indigenous children born in communities straddling the border do not qualify for Canadian passports, despite living here.

The government, which has reduced its targets for the number of permanent residents to reduce pressure on housing and other services, has never publicly said how many new Canadians it expects the change in the law will create.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer based its 115,000 figure on estimates of the number of Canadians by descent living outside Canada and assumed that their numbers grow at the same rate as the Canadian population. The PBO included people who were adopted by a Canadian who could become citizens under the change.

“The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates a total net cost of the proposed amendments to the Citizenship Act to be $20.8-million over five years, beginning in 2025‑2026. The total number of persons that would be affected is estimated to be around 115,000 over the same period,” the report said.

Don Chapman, who has been campaigning for decades to restore rights to lost Canadians, said he did not think that all those gaining the right to citizenship under the bill who live abroad would opt to come to Canada. He said a lot of lost Canadians were already living in Canada, including children.

“It’s likely that most people who are eligible will not apply,” he said.

Source: Lost Canadians bill could create 115,000 more citizens, says parliamentary budget officer

PBO Report: Amending the Citizenship Act (2024) 

    Ukrainian Parliament passes multiple #citizenship bill in first reading

    Of note:

    The Verkhovna Rada, Ukraine’s parliament, has passed the first reading of a bill allowing multiple citizenship, with 247 lawmakers voting in favor of the legislation on 17 December 2024, according to Ukrainian MP Yaroslav Zhelezniak.

    The bill, initially submitted by President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in August, aims to establish a framework for multiple citizenship in Ukraine while setting clear restrictions on who can qualify.

    According to MP Yaroslav Zhelezniak, the bill will undergo further revisions before its second reading, incorporating suggestions from organizations including the Ukrainian World Congress. In a separate vote, 150 MPs supported requesting a Constitutional Court opinion on the legislation.

    The proposed law would allow multiple citizenship in several specific cases:

    • Children acquiring dual citizenship at birth
    • Ukrainian children gaining second citizenship through foreign adoption
    • Automatic acquisition of second citizenship through marriage to a foreign citizen
    • Automatic acquisition of foreign citizenship by an adult Ukrainian citizen due to the application of another country’s citizenship laws
    • Simplified acquisition of Ukrainian citizenship for foreigners who are citizens of countries included in the list of those eligible for simplified citizenship procedures
    • Ukrainians acquiring citizenship of countries that offer simplified procedures to Ukrainian citizens

    Importantly, the law explicitly prohibits multiple citizenship for Russian citizens or citizens of any country that does not recognize Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty.

    The legislation aims to facilitate the return of Ukrainians who left the country due to the war while allowing them to maintain any additional citizenships they may have acquired. It also seeks to expand opportunities for certain categories of foreigners and stateless persons to obtain Ukrainian citizenship.

    Source: Ukrainian Parliament passes multiple citizenship bill in first reading

    Rousso: One crucial missing criterion in Canada’s immigration policy, Russ: Canada’s failing multiculturalism needs a rethink 

    The emergence of more articles arguing for some form of values test for immigrants, despite all the issues and problems in developing, implementing and enforcing the same. Starting with Rousso:

    …Canada can learn from these experiences. A comprehensive immigration policy must go beyond economic and humanitarian considerations to include an evaluation of prospective immigrants’ willingness to embrace Canadian values. While this may seem controversial or invasive, it is a fundamental right and responsibility of any nation to preserve its cultural and social framework. By addressing this gap, Canada would not only protect its democratic principles but also foster more cohesive communities.

    Practical steps could include requiring immigrants to declare their stance on key social values during the application process. This might involve affirming support for gender equality, freedom of speech, and the rule of law. Additionally, Canada could implement mandatory orientation programs for newcomers, emphasizing the country’s core principles and expectations. Such measures would not only aid integration but also reassure Canadians that their government is taking proactive steps to safeguard the nation’s identity.

    Critics may argue that introducing value-based criteria risks alienating or excluding deserving applicants. However, this is not about rejecting those in need; rather, it is about ensuring that immigrants are prepared to contribute positively to Canadian society. A values-based approach would also provide an opportunity for honest dialogue, helping to identify areas where newcomers may need support in adapting to their new environment.

    Canada’s history as a welcoming and diverse nation is one of its greatest strengths. To preserve this legacy, the government must address the blind spot in its immigration policy. The long-term social harmony and security of the nation depend on it. As immigration continues to shape Canada’s future, integrating a values-based criterion is not only reasonable but essential for the country to thrive in an increasingly divided world.

    Dotan Rousso was born and raised in Israel and holds a Ph.D. in Law. He is a former criminal prosecutor in Israel. He currently lives in Alberta and teaches Philosophy at the Southern Alberta Institute of Technology (SAIT).

    Source: OP-ED: One crucial missing criterion in Canada’s immigration policy

    From Russ:

    …Citizenship is a covenant that mandates living with goodwill and in peace among your neighbours. In no way does it entitle you to attack places of worship or threaten your fellow citizens in the streets because it’s what your grandfather might have done at another time in another land. Attacking a Hindu temple or synagogue, whether the perpetrators were born here or abroad, is unacceptable in Canada, as is using the country as a base to try to launch terrorist attacks in the United States.

    To this day, the vast majority of people who immigrate to Canada are peaceful, and it is wrong to tar entire groups with the same brushstrokes. Also true is that throughout history, there are the violent, radical few who terrify and bully the many.

    On Remembrance Day, thousands of Canadians gathered at the cenotaphs to commemorate over 100,000 of our soldiers who died in Canada’s wars, chief among them the struggle that stopped Adolf Hitler during the Second World War. They did not die so that feral antisemites could raise Nazi salutes in Montreal and call for a “final solution.”

    Those who did remember on Nov. 11 exemplify the vast, ignored backbone of Canada. Their ancestors came from around the world, and they dutifully go to work, obey the law, and raise families in a country where all can recognize each other as Canadian, or aspire to do so.

    Some of our leaders, who espouse multiculturalism as the only pillar of Canadian society, have failed to distinguish between welcoming new people and allowing radicals to remake its culture and politics entirely. Canada may be a constitutionally multicultural country, but that comes with no ironclad policy directives.

    Multiculturalism need be no more than a bargain that nobody should be asked to abandon their ancestral language, religion, or holiday, but that your vendettas should be forgotten and that you will abide by the customs and values of Canada. There are ways to enforce this essential distinction.

    It was suggested in The Hub that a Canadian values test for new immigrants is sorely needed right now, and it is. One question that belongs on that test is, “Is it acceptable to attack a community’s house of worship?” They could answer “no” and lie, it’s true, but if the answer is affirmative, then they ought to be shown the door with no further questions.

    Those already here who violate the multicultural covenant should be sternly punished, not coddled by politicians like Mélanie Joly, who subordinates Canadian foreign policy to the “demographics” of her riding. If some feel that they can raise a Nazi salute in Canada, it is time to accept that simply holding the passport does not mean somebody embodies Canadian values.

    In 2017, sections of Bill C-24, which allowed for the revocation of citizenship for people convicted of terrorism-related offences, were repealed. Reintroducing and passing those measures would send a strong message now in 2024.

    Many wounds have been inflicted upon Canada over the past few years, and these are but a few ways of healing them.

    However, Canadians are right to expect their government to set an example by having the bravery and stomach to lead the healing of these wounds, which will involve making an example of the rot festering within them.

    If those in power right now will not do this, then Canada needs new leadership.

    Source: Geoff Russ: Canada’s failing multiculturalism needs a rethink

    The GOP stoked fears of noncitizens voting. Cases in Ohio show how rhetoric and reality diverge

    No surprise:

    Before the November presidential election, Ohio’s secretary of state and attorney general announced investigations into potential voter fraud that included people suspected of casting ballots even though they were not U.S. citizens.

    It coincided with a national Republican messaging strategy warning that potentially thousands of ineligible voters would be voting.

    “The right to vote is sacred,” Attorney General Dave Yost, a Republican, said in a statement at the time. “If you’re not a U.S. citizen, it’s illegal to vote -– whether you thought you were allowed to or not. You will be held accountable.”

    In the end, their efforts led to just a handful of cases. Of the 621 criminal referrals for voter fraud that Secretary of State Frank LaRose sent to the attorney general, prosecutors have secured indictments against nine people for voting as noncitizens over the span of 10 years — and one was later found to have died. That total is a tiny fraction of Ohio’s 8 million registered voters and the tens of millions of ballots cast during that period.

    The outcome and the stories of some of those now facing charges illustrate the gap — both in Ohio and across the United States — between the rhetoric about noncitizen voting and the reality: It’s rare, is caught and prosecuted when it does happen and does not occur as part of a coordinated scheme to throw elections.

    Source: The GOP stoked fears of noncitizens voting. Cases in Ohio show how rhetoric and reality diverge

    C-71 Senate SOCI Report

    Of note, as often happens, the narrower interests related to adoption prevail over broader policy considerations (time limit for residency test):

    This bill is a response to the December 2023 decision from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Bjorkquist et al. v. Attorney General of Canada). This decision declared that the existing provisions in the Citizenship Act that limit citizenship by descent to the first generation born abroad, contravene the mobility and equality rights provisions in sections 6 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Charter). These provisions in the Act are thus unconstitutional and, as such, have no force or effect. The Court suspended its declaration of invalidity until December 19, 2024, to give the Government of Canada time to amend the Citizenship Act.

    With consideration to the impending court deadline, on November 28, 2024, the subject matter of Bill C-71 was referred to your committee for a pre-study, with instructions to report its findings to the Senate within two weeks. Your committee therefore received limited witness testimony and did not have enough time to seek additional clarity from stakeholders and government officials on this important piece of legislation. Your committee examined the subject matter of this bill over two meetings, hearing testimony from the Honourable Marc Miller, P.C., M.P., Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship and departmental officials, in addition to six stakeholders.

    Your committee heard broad support for the substantial connection test proposed by Bill C-71.

    Concerns around equity and consideration of rights guaranteed by the Charter dominated much of the other limited testimony that was received. The Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship stated that, if Bill C-71 is adopted, the Citizenship Act will be in full compliance with the Charter for the first time in its history. While some stakeholders agreed that the bill addresses the exclusions of the current Act, others cautioned that inequities in recognizing citizenship may persist, including violations of Charter rights.

    In particular, concerns were raised by some stakeholders about the requirements for recognizing the citizenship of the children of internationally born adoptees. Your committee heard diverging perspectives on this point and, therefore, encourages the Government of Canada to engage with relevant stakeholders to further investigate this issue and consider amendments to the bill, if required.

    Your committee also acknowledges the overall complexity of the Citizenship Act and suggests that careful consideration be taken at each step of the legislative and implementation processes relevant to this bill to prevent future lost Canadians and further violation of Charter rights.

    During his testimony, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship informed the committee that the Government of Canada is seeking an additional extension to the court deadline.

    Source: C-71 Senate SOCI Report

    Media coverage focused on extension of court deadline:

    An unknown number of people will automatically become Canadian citizens next week if the Ontario Superior Court doesn’t grant the federal government a third extension to fix the issue of “lost Canadians,” Canada argued in court Thursday.

    “Lost Canadians” is a term applied to people who were born outside of the country to Canadian parents who were also born in another country. In 2009, the former Conservative government changed the law so people who were born abroad could not pass down their citizenship unless their child was born in Canada.

    In late 2023, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled that law is unconstitutional.The government has until Dec. 19 to amend the Citizenship Act to respond to that decision. It is now seeking its third extension, after being granted delays in June and August.

    In court Thursday the government asked for the Dec. 19 deadline to be delayed three months, until March 19, 2025, to give them more time to pass legislation.

    The Liberals introduced the amendments to the Citizenship Act in May but the bill only began real debate in September. It has been sidelined since then, as an ongoing battle between the Conservatives and Liberals delays most work in the House of Commons.

    The new legislation stipulates that anyone who meets the criteria would be eligible for citizenship if their parents spent a cumulative three years in Canada before they were born.

    Source: Missed ’Lost Canadians’ deadline would make ’unknowable’ number of new citizens: feds

    Pro-life groups need to defend birthright citizenship

    Interesting take (but then again, Catholic organizations tend to support more generous immigration and related policies, unlike Evangelicals):

    President-elect Donald Trump stated he plans to end birthright citizenship, which is currently guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. The pro-life movement, which is as significant a part of the GOP base as the anti-immigrant caucus, needs to step up and oppose any attempt to end the conferral of citizenship on those born in the United States.

    The foundational argument of the pro-life movement is that all life is sacred, and that once you start parsing who is, and who is not, entitled to certain rights, you are halfway down a slippery moral slope. All human beings, as human beings, should enjoy the same rights as every other human being.

    The relationship of abortion policy to immigration policy might seem counterintuitive. The 14th Amendment doesn’t help the pro-life cause. It refers to “All persons born or naturalized in the United States …” Pro-choice groups argue that a human being only has a right to life once it is born, but once born, the rights that are conferred on the person are sacrosanct.

    Those who drafted and enacted the 14th Amendment were not addressing the moral and legal issues surrounding abortion, and they didn’t have sonograms in 1866 when members of Congress began drafting the amendment after President Andrew Johnson vetoed the Civil Rights Act that year.

    The drafters of the 14th Amendment aimed to extend the equal protection of the laws to those formerly enslaved. They knew that the framers of the original Constitution had it wrong when they decreed that slaves only counted as three-fifths of a person for purposes of representation in the Congress. They knew that the founders had been wrong about slavery entirely. They knew that this diminishment of the humanity of those who had been enslaved was an affront to our nation’s foundational claims about human freedom and legal equality.

    The pro-life movement has always been constructed on this deeper moral concern, that no person should have their humanity diminished, even if the movement has failed to live up to this high ideal. The source of human rights is our civilizational belief in transcendent human dignity. Virtually every religion expresses this belief in some way. Ours expresses it in terms of the imago Dei, the belief that every person is made in the image of likeness of God. Every time the pro-life movement ignores other threats to this God-given human dignity, it weakens its credibility.

    “Catholic social thought starts with the dignity of each person and the whole person,” Dylan Corbett, executive director of the Hope Border Institute which advocates for immigrants, told me. “This is the bedrock of the church’s commitment to the poor, the unborn and the vulnerable, without distinction. In the coming months, the Trump administration’s targeting of our parishioners, neighbors and the essential workers in our communities simply because of immigration status will test the credibility of our moral witness.”

    Kristen Day, director of Democrats for Life of America agrees. “Pro-life principles don’t end where Donald Trump’s pet projects begin,” she told me via email. “Remaining silent on the issue of birthright citizenship would betray our movement’s highest values because there is nothing pro-life about ending it. Life begins at conception, but it doesn’t end at birth.”

    To be clear, even a democracy seriously engaged in working for equality will need to draw distinctions, to discriminate, between people. We all know a precocious 16- or 17-year-old who is more mature than some 20-somethings we know, but unless you are 18, you don’t get to vote. We wouldn’t want the government devising some kind of test that decides who is worthy to vote, and who isn’t, and so we set an arbitrary cutoff. That arbitrary cutoff is applied universally.

    In terms of abortion policy, conception, viability and birth are the usual cutoffs, and there is an argument to be made for any of the three. Only the first coheres with Catholic teaching, and in most pluralistic democracies, the cutoff is at some point between conception and viability.

    As a culture, a society and a polity, we need to learn how to think more deeply, and less arbitrarily, about where we draw such lines.

    The idea that a person is a citizen of the place where he or she is born is a bulwark against any attempt to discriminate unjustly. A good way to sniff if a particular discrimination is just or unjust is to ask whether it is universal. Birthright citizenship is universal: It applies to everyone born here.

    This political linkage of immigration and abortion cuts both ways. Pro-immigrant arguments would have greater moral cogency to many Americans if they were put forward by people who are committed to protecting the lives of unborn children, or at least not indifferent to the dignity of those unborn children. Given the polarization of the country, that moral linkage is not apparent to most and will be dismissed by many. Still, moral coherence eventually wins out most of the time.

    At this moment in our nation’s political history, the pro-life movement should rally around the cause of defending birthright citizenship.

    Source: Pro-life groups need to defend birthright citizenship

    Canadian Immigration Tracker – October 2024 Update

    Year to date highlights:

    • Permanent residents admissions: Increase January-October from 404,000 in 2023 to 413,000 in 2024 or 2.3 percent.   
    • TR2PR (Those already in Canada): Increase January-October from 212,000 in 2023 to 219,000 in 2024 or 3.3 percent. 
    • TRs-IMP: Decrease January-October from 757,000 in 2023 to 648,000 in 2024 or -14.5 percent.
    • TRs-TFWP: Decrease January-October from 172,000 in 2023 to 165,000 in 2024 or -4.0 percent.
    • Students: Decrease January-October from 570,000 in 2023 to 461,000 in 2024 or -19.2 percent. Post-secondary only: Decline from 431,000 to 328,000 or 23.9 percent.
    • Asylum Claimants: Increase January-October from 117,000 in 2023 to 149,000 in 2024 or 27.3 percent.
    • Citizenship: Increase January-October from 317,000 in 2023 to 329,000 in 2024 or 3.7 percent.
    • Visitor Visas: Decrease January-October from 1,567,000 in 2023 to 1,290,000 in 2024 or -17.7 percent.

    https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/canadian-immigration-tracker-october-2024-pdf/274022459