Overseas voters will have to prove citizenship, residency under new rules

While I suspect that the extent of “riding shopping” is quite limited, and the Government provided no numbers to indicate that it is, the basic requirements for voting abroad to provide proof of citizenship and last place of residence in Canada are reasonable.

Interesting that both opposition parties have not condemned these measures off the bat:

A government-issued backgrounder accompanying the bill notes that in Canada, voters “cannot pick and choose their riding,” but are required to cast a ballot in the riding in which they live.”

By contrast, Canadians living abroad do not have to prove any past residence in the riding in which they vote,” it notes.

“It is unfair to allow a person who has never lived in a community to vote on who will represent that community.”

The bill was introduced by Minister of State for Democratic Reform Pierre Poilievre Wednesday afternoon. In a written statement, he said the new rules “will help ensure that only citizens vote, that their votes only count in their home ridings and that they show ID to prove both.”

The bill also seems to be a response to a recent Federal Court ruling that upheld the right of Canadians abroad to vote in federal elections even after being out of the country for five years.

Overseas voters will have to prove citizenship, residency under new rules – Politics – CBC News.

Not a Canadian citizen? Why you should think about applying now

After the rules change Before the rules change
If you are 14 to 64 years old, you will have to:
  • show language ability in English or French, and
  • prove your knowledge of Canada in English or French
Only if you are 18 to 54 years old do you have to show language ability and knowledge of Canada.
And you may be able to have an interpreter in your own language to help you prove your knowledge of Canada.
You can apply only after you have lived in Canada as a permanent resident for:
  • at least 4 out of the last 6 years, and
  • at least 183 days each year for at least 4 out of the last 6 years
You can apply after you have lived in Canada for 3 out of the last 4 years.
And you may be able to include time that you lived here before becoming a permanent resident.
Only time when you are in Canada will count as living in Canada. Time when you are outside Canadamay still count if your permanent home is here.
You need to file your income tax returns for 4 out of the last 6 years. You do not have to show that you have filed income tax returns.
You must plan to continue living in Canada. If you leave Canada and live somewhere else, the government may be able to take away your Canadian citizenship. You do not have to plan to live in Canada. If you become a Canadian citizen before the rules change, you cannot lose your citizenship only because you live somewhere else in the future.

 Another example of organizations providing advice re the impact of the changes to the Citizenship Act, and why it is important to get applications in before the coming into force next summer.

 Their table above is particularly clear, although their interpretation of the ‘intent to reside’ provision, while supported by most lawyers, differs from Minister Alexander’s clear statements that the provision only applies during the application process, not once one is a citizen:

Not a Canadian citizen? Why you should think about applying now | CLEO (Community Legal Education Ontario / Éducation juridique communautaire Ontario).

Refugees most likely to become Canadian citizens | Indo-Canadian Voice

Under-reported, if at all, by the mainstream media.

The overall naturalization rate, as per the Census and the National Household Survey, is 85 percent and not quite sure of the reasons for the discrepancy (although makes sense citizenship more important for refugees than others):

Refugees are much more likely to become citizens than family class and other immigrants, according to a February 2014 internal report in the Citizenship and Immigration Department.

Lexbase, Canada’s foremost immigration publication and the largest information network for Canadian immigration practitioners, said the report noted: “Citizenship take-up rates differ depending on the admission class (family, economic or refugee) at time of landing. Refugees who arrived between 1991 and 1995 (6 to 10 years in Canada in 2001) recorded a citizenship take-up rate of 85%; those who landed in 1996 or 1997 had a take-up rate of 59% by 2001.“

In contrast, family class immigrants – who tend to be older at the time of landing than other immigrants recorded the lowest citizenship take-up rates: 60% among those who have lived in Canada for 6 to 10 years and 30% among the newly eligible.”

The report noted: “The differences in take-up rates by admission class can be explained in large part by the source countries, the circumstances leading to immigration, and age at admission. For instance, the vast majority of refugees come from developing countries, and are most likely to become naturalized Canadians.

“As well, immigrants who enter as refugees are likely to leave their source country under adverse conditions and hence are more likely to migrate on a permanent basis. Becoming Canadian could be seen as the final step of their migration.”

Refugees most likely to become Canadian citizens | Indo-Canadian Voice.

UK: Theresa May cancels family’s British citizenship

Revocation for dual nationals, born in Britain:

A British-born man and his three grown-up sons have been stripped of their citizenship by Theresa May, the Home Secretary over alleged terrorism links.

The 51-year-old man, who was born in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and his London-born sons, who are all in their twenties, had their British nationality rescinded two years ago while they were out of the country.

Mrs May’s decision was upheld by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Siac) but now the father, who can only be identified as ‘S1’, has claimed they are “innocent of all the allegations”.

They are now living in Pakistan, where S1s parents were born.

S1 admitted his daughter had travelled to Syria with a jihadist but he told the Sunday Times newspaper that she did so without his knowledge.

The father said he and his sons had been unfairly accused of supporting terrorism because of his daughter’s actions.

In a ruling from 2012, Siac heard S1 and his sons – known as T1, U1 and V1 – were linked with al-Qaeda.

Theresa May cancels family’s British citizenship – Telegraph.

Chris Alexander’s rocky journey from Kabul to cabinet | Toronto Star

A largely sympathetic portrait of Minister Alexander, balanced with supporters and critics (Konrad Yakabuski’s earlier portrait was sharper in tone Chris Alexander balances his portfolio and power):

But even the brightest and most independent minds must work within the party system in Parliament. “The best ministers are always independent of spirit,” says [ Former PM Joe] Clark. “That doesn’t mean they take on their party or their leader regularly in public debate. I think it’s a characteristic of really any strong minister I’ve encountered and I think Chris brings that capacity to the table.”

Alexander’s response to the question about whether his independent spirit chafes under the parliamentary and party system is deliberate. “We go into caucus, into cabinet, and not everyone agrees. And no one who has been part of a team expects their vision or their priorities to prevail. But this is a strong team because we do work together; we do support each other and we have moved a huge number of issues forward, especially in the area of immigration.

“I have to say there is nothing more satisfying than to be part of Canada’s democracy . . . I think this is the best government we’ve had in Canadian history. And I’m proud to be part of it.

”So does Alexander think he’s reached political superstardom?

“I will leave it to others . . . Voters get the chance to do that every four years.”

Listening to his more inclusive language at the recent Canadian Race Relations Foundation symposium was an interesting contrast to some of his more churlish language when defending government positions (e.g., refugee claimant healthcare coverage, Syrian refugees).

Chris Alexander’s rocky journey from Kabul to cabinet | Toronto Star.

Don’t cut social assistance for newcomers to Canada: Omidvar

Ratna Omidvar correctly calls out the Government on the omnibus budget bill provision allowing provinces to deny social assistance to refugee claimants:

Future citizenship is both policy and public philosophy. There is a clear and relatively quick pathway to citizenship for immigrants to Canada, although the waiting time is set to get longer in 2015. As for public philosophy, immigrant children learn in public schools from a young age that “you’re just as Canadian as anyone else.” Because this message is in our books and infused in our day-to-day, the idea that immigrants are future citizens actually becomes lived expression.

In the last of her Massey Lectures on citizenship, Adrienne Clarkson explains why the Canadian mindset works using the theory of Hans Vaihinger, who thought that to act “as if” something is true is a practical way to get there.

Because we treat newcomers as future citizens, serious investment is made in their health, well-being and skill level from the start, often regardless of immigration status. Canada has a robust settlement sector, we pay for language courses, we extend health care and social services to non-citizens, and some cities invite non-citizens to sit on local boards. The Canadian mindset is why our school boards and police services follow a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, so that status does not determine access to essential services. When we act as if newcomers are citizens, they truly are citizens in the making.

But this core trait that makes us work — and that’s exportable to countries like Germany where the citizenship laws are under revision — is being chipped away by policies introduced by this government. I alluded to one of these changes already: the coming increase in residence time from three to four years before applying for citizenship.

But there is another change buried in a thick new omnibus bill and it is far worse. It would allow provinces to restrict refugee claimants and others without permanent status from accessing social assistance by lifting a ban on minimum residency requirements — a ban that said we don’t care if you’ve been here for two years or 24 hours, if you’re a refugee claimant or other temporary resident, you will be treated humanely. In the worst-case scenario if this law is passed, people without permanent status would lose social assistance, which for some is their only source of income.

Don’t cut social assistance for newcomers to Canada | Toronto Star.

Controversial Knesset bills could revoke citizenship

The debate over citizenship revocation in Israel:

“In my opinion, even if the interior minister has the power to revoke residency status, it is an illegal and undemocratic action. In any event, the accomplice driver [Nadi] was already tried and punished; what’s the point, then, in divesting him of his social rights all of a sudden; and why present it as a showcase?” Meretz Knesset member Issawi Frej, the only Arab Knesset member for a Zionist party, told Al-Monitor. Frej is furious at Erdan’s [the Israeli Interior Minister’s] resolution, and argues that, like all other nationalist and racist legislative initiatives of the current Knesset, this initiative, too, is driven by political considerations.

Frej said: “If Erdan is so keen on fighting terrorism, why doesn’t he take on for starters the case of Yigal Amir [the Israeli assassin of former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin]? Ultimately, whatever way you look at it, these bills all go against the Arabs. What I have to say is quite simple: Israel is governed by law. Whoever perpetrates an act of terrorism is tried and punished, and all are equal before the law, Arabs and Jews alike. Why, then, should Erdan blow his own horn about [his initiative for] the revocation of residency status, and thus keep fanning the flames? Because he wants to win points among his supporters. It will surely benefit him in the Likud primaries. There is a trend now of going against the Arabs, and what we are witnessing these days is no less than a crisis of values. There is no other way to describe it.”

Controversial Knesset bills could revoke citizenship – Al-Monitor: the Pulse of the Middle East.

Mental illness may be used to deny Australian citizenship under new bill

The Australian equivalent of the recent changes to the Canadian Citizenship Act:

The legislation lists a number of clauses that the immigration minister can use to revoke or deny citizenship, including a pending, current or previous criminal conviction, or a court-ordered confinement to a psychiatric institution due to criminal offences.

It also states that people who have court orders to undertake a residential drug rehabilitation scheme or a residential program for the mentally ill, can be barred from becoming Australian.

The bill would expand the immigration minister’s powers in deciding who can be granted citizenship, and legislates a good character requirement for applicants.

Good character their equivalent, with all the ambiguities, of “intent to reside?”

Mental illness may be used to deny Australian citizenship under new bill | Australia news | theguardian.com.

Canadians with alleged terrorist links – Canada – CBC News

The list as compiled by CBC.

And the normal mix of those who have dual nationality (or who have citizenship rights from another country) and who can have their citizenship revoked, and those who have Canadian citizenship only, who cannot:

Likely Dual Nationals

Likely Canadian Only

Canadians charged by the RCMP but still at large

Ferid Ahmed Imam

Ahmad Waseem

Maiwand Yar

Hasibullah Yusufzai

Canadians reported to be fighting or supporting extremists abroad, but not charged

Mohammed Ali

Sami Elabi

Um m Haritha

Omar Hassan

Mohammad Ibrahim

Abu Dujana al-Muhajir

Farah Mohamed Shirdon

Collin Gordon

Gregory Gordon

John Maguire

Canadians accused of possible terrorist links by other countries

Faker Boussora

Abderraouf Jdey

Amer El-Maati

Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips

Canadians with alleged terrorist links – Canada – CBC News.

And the accompanying article and debate whether the list should be broader (i.e., lower standard of proof to be on the list):

Who are the most wanted extremists in Canada?

Majority of Canadians worry about domestic terrorism, according to new survey

Results are not that surprising, given recent events, and given that civil liberties rarely do well in public polling.

But encouraging that people recognize the importance of prevention and the contributing role of mental illness and marginalization:

Almost two-thirds of Canadians believe homegrown terrorism is a serious issue, but most do not perceive a threat from radicalized individuals in their communities, according to a new survey.

The national poll, conducted in the wake of deadly attacks on Canadian soldiers, found that just over half of respondents supported new anti-terror legislation that would boost the powers of Canada’s spies. Another 22 per cent said the government should go even further, suggesting they have not been swayed by civil liberties concerns.

At the same time, those surveyed recognized that there are many factors behind radicalization — religion, mental illness and marginalization — and seemed open to a range of preventative measures, not just punitive ones.

“People are sensitive to the fact this is a complex issue that requires a comprehensive approach,” said Christian Leuprecht, a security expert at the Royal Military College of Canada and Queen’s University.

Majority of Canadians worry about domestic terrorism, according to new survey.