Korea: Court denies dual citizenship application, citing ‘birth tourism’

Of note:
A Seoul court has supported the rejection of an application for dual US-South Korean citizenship because their parent’s residence in the US was for the purpose of their child gaining US citizenship.The Seoul Administrative Court said Monday that it had ruled in favor of the Seoul Southern Immigration Office, which rejected the plaintiff’s February 2024 application to retain the citizenships of both countries.

South Korea’s Nationality Act states that a child of a citizen obtains citizenship at birth, and the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution grants citizenship to anyone born inside its territories. This means that someone born in the US to parents who are Korean citizens — as in case of the plaintiff — is granted dual citizenships at birth.

Dual citizens at birth are usually allowed to retain the nationality of South Korea and another country by pledging to the government not to exercise the rights of foreign citizenship before the age of 22, or within two years of completing their mandatary military service in the case of men. This is to prevent dual citizens from dodging duties mandated for South Koreans, such military service.

But the immigration office refused to allow dual citizenship to the plaintiff, saying that the plaintiff’s mother is thought to have lived in the US only for the explicit purpose of obtaining US citizenship for her child — sometimes referred to as “birth tourism.” The Nationality Act states that in cases where the parent is “deemed to have resided in a foreign country for the purpose of having the person acquire the nationality of the foreign country,” the child can retain his or her South Korean citizenship only after renouncing the other nationality.

The plaintiff’s mother went to the US in 2003 just before giving birth to the plaintiff, staying in the country for a month and a half. She went back to the US in 2011 and lived for four months since then.

“There are substantial grounds to believe (that the plaintiff’s mother) gave birth in a foreign country, with the intent to have the child gain the citizenship there,” the court said in its verdict.

The plaintiff denied that the mother’s stay in the US was for the purpose of ensuring her child had US citizenship, saying that she lived for four years in the country overall.

The Article 17-3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Nationality Act does state that a person who lived for two or more years in a country and gave birth there cannot be considered as having conducted birth tourism. But the court said this clause applies to parents who stayed for two consecutive years at the time of the birth of the child.

“The Nationality Act of this country had applied strict single nationality principle, and has only allowed dual citizenship on a limited number of cases since 2010. If the court interprets the article (Article 17-3) as the plaintiff claims, we cannot achieve the act’s goal of preventing birth tourism,” the court went on to say.

Source: Court denies dual citizenship application, citing ‘birth tourism’

Petition asking PM to revoke Elon Musk’s Canadian citizenship garners support

Although this has a good feel, largely virtue signalling as no grounds for revocation. Avoiding Musk companies such as Tesla, Starlink makes more sense. Twitter/X harder one given that it still has usefulness in sharing information and opinions among both serious persons and the Trump/Musk followers.

That being said, I signed:

Thousands of people have electronically signed a parliamentary petition calling for revocation of Elon Musk’s Canadian citizenship over his role in the Trump administration, which is pointedly threatening Canada’s sovereignty.

The petition, making its way through the House of Commons process, was initiated by Qualia Reed, a Nanaimo, B.C., author.

New Democrat MP Charlie Angus, an outspoken critic of Musk, is sponsoring the petition, which had more than 34,000 signatures from across Canada as of Saturday evening.

Musk is a native of South Africa but he has Canadian citizenship through his Regina-born mother.

The petition says Musk, a billionaire businessman and adviser to U.S. President Donald Trump, has engaged in activities that go against the national interest of Canada.

Trump has threatened to impose widespread tariffs on Canadian products and has openly mused about Canada becoming the 51st state, drawing the ire of millions of Canadians.

The petition asks Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to revoke Musk’s citizenship and Canadian passport.

An electronic petition must have 500 or more signatures to receive certification for presentation to the House of Commons, opening the door to a formal government response.

The House is Commons is slated to resume sitting March 24, but many expect a general election to be called before MPs return.

Source: Petition asking PM to revoke Elon Musk’s Canadian citizenship garners support

LoP – Canadian Citizenship: Practice and Policy

Good comprehensive review by the Library of Parliament of legislative and policy issues along with related history. Lots of familiar references to declining rates of citizenship, “lost Canadians” and birth tourism. Executive Summary below:

Canadian citizenship can be obtained through birth on Canadian soil, by descent through birth or adoption outside of Canada to a Canadian citizen, or through naturalization (the process by which citizenship is obtained by a foreign national). Requirements related to citizenship are laid out in the Citizenship Act, as well as in the Citizenship Regulations and Citizenship Regulations, No. 2.

Responsibility for implementing the Citizenship Act lies with the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, who is supported by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) in managing the citizenship application process. The Citizenship Commission – an administrative body under IRCC that is made up of citizenship judges – also plays an important role, with duties including assessing citizenship applications to ensure they meet certain requirements under the Act and administering the Oath or Affirmation of Citizenship.

To become a Canadian citizen through naturalization, an individual must first obtain permanent residency in Canada and then apply for citizenship after meeting residency and other requirements. Applicants between 18 and 54 years of age must also complete a written test based on the official citizenship study guide (Discover Canada: The Rights and Responsibilities of Citizenship) and attend an interview to test their abilities in English or French and to discuss their application. Successful applicants attend a citizenship ceremony and take the Oath or Affirmation of Citizenship, through which they swear or affirm their allegiance to the King of Canada.

Loss of citizenship can occur if it is revoked (for example, due to citizenship being acquired or retained through false representation) or it can be renounced voluntarily (for example, if an individual chooses to become a citizen of a country that does not allow dual citizenship).

Several issues are currently at the forefront of discourse on citizenship policy. For example, census data show that the rate of citizenship among recent immigrants to Canada declined between 2006 and 2021. The citizenship rate varies for different groups, with contributing factors including income level, education level and country of origin.

Another key issue is that of “lost Canadians,” which refers to individuals who were born before the 1977 Citizenship Act came into force and who should have been Canadian citizens under that Act but were deprived of Canadian citizenship because of outdated or obsolete provisions in the Canadian Citizenship Act of 1947. Many of the problems associated with “lost Canadians” have been addressed through amendments made to the Citizenship Act since 1977. Those whose cases are not covered by legislative amendments may be granted citizenship on a case-by-case basis at the minister’s discretion. Following a December 2023 Ontario court ruling, the federal government introduced Bill C‑71, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act, to address “lost Canadians” issues that remain following previous legislative amendments. This bill died on the Order Paper on 6 January 2025 when the 1st session of the 44th Parliament was prorogued, but the Court’s order is scheduled to come into effect on 19 March 2025.

Finally, the concept of birth tourism refers to the practice by foreign nationals of coming to Canada to give birth for the sole purpose of securing Canadian citizenship for their child. While data suggest an increase in non-resident births in the past two decades, it is difficult to determine how many non-resident births are cases of birth tourism. A federal initiative linking health and immigration data has shed further light on the topic….

Source: Canadian Citizenship: Practice and Policy

Finland Considers Introducing Citizenship Test to Candidates

Believe last of the Nordics to consider doing so:

  • The Finnish Interior Ministry wants to include a citizenship test for candidates.
  • This test could include language exams, which are already mandatory for applicants for citizenship in other EU countries.
  • A citizenship test could serve as proof that the candidates have integrated well into Finnish society.

A working group tasked by the Finnish Interior Ministry is looking into the possibility of introducing a citizenship test, further tightening the requirements for citizenship candidates.

According to a press release by the Interior Ministry, the citizenship test would prove that the candidates have “successfully integrated” into Finnish society, including here labour market, Schengen.News reports.

The cross-administrative working group examined how a citizenship test could be implemented in Finland, and also assessed the relationship between the citizenship test and the language skills requirement. 

Finnish Interior Ministry

The new measures are part of a reform that plans to tighten rules for citizenship as well as permanent residents. Previously, the Finnish authorities discussed introducing more stringent requirements for permanent residence permit applicants, including here language requirements.

Language Exams Likely to Be Included in the Finnish Citizenship Test

Candidates for Finnish citizenship already have to prove they have mastered the Finnish or Swedish language to some extent like most EU Member States have similar requirements for citizenship candidates.

The citizenship test is one part of this reform. To qualify for Finnish citizenship, the applicant would be required to be successfully integrated into Finnish society, in employment, and able to comply with the rules of Finnish society. 

Interior Ministry

Of the other Nordic countries, Denmark and Norway have citizenship tests in place while Sweden is also planning to tighten the rules for those acquiring Swedish citizenship….

Source: Finland Considers Introducing Citizenship Test to Candidates

Todd: Should birthright citizenship, banned in most countries but not Canada, be a human right?

More on birth tourism, based on some of my analysis:

Birth tourism” is on the rise again in Canada.

In the past year, 5,219 babies were born in Canada to travelling foreign nationals.

In B.C., 102 non-resident births were at Richmond General Hospital; 99 were at Surrey Memorial; 97 were at Vancouver’s St. Paul’s Hospital; and another 85 were at Children’s Hospital, according to Andrew Griffith, a former senior director in Canada’s immigration department who is now an immigration analyst.

At the same time that Griffith was releasing data showing non-resident births are returning to 2019 levels in an article published in Policy Options last month, entrepreneurs in Richmond said there has been an uptick in inquiries from women in China and other parts of East Asia who want to have their babies in Canada now that President Donald Trump aims to end birthright citizenship in the U.S.

The ethical debate over birthright citizenship, also known as jus soli (right of the soil), is coming to a head as Democratic U.S. states challenge Trump’s initiative and non-resident births rise again in Canada with the easing of COVID-19 restrictions.

Data from the Canadian Institute for Health Information shows the percentage of non-resident births in Canada fell from 1.6 per cent of total births in 2019-20 to 0.7 per cent in 2020-22. It rebounded to 1.5 per cent in 2023-24.

A majority of countries forbid birthright citizenship, including virtually every country in Europe, Asia and Africa. It’s permitted in only about 33 nations.

Even though 160 years ago the U.S. enshrined the 14th Amendment to protect the constitutional rights of those born on its soil, particularly former slaves, Griffith said Canada’s laws on birthright citizenship could be more easily changed than in the U.S.

While most countries mandate that a child’s citizenship depends on the passport held by the parents, Canadian academics argue that birthright citizenship should be a “global human right.”

Today, one of the most common rebuttals to such a stand is that babies who receive citizenship only because they were born on Canadian territory are jumping the country’s immigration queue, which others must go through to qualify to become permanent residents and access universal education, health care and social services.

Two Canadian scholars who have obtained federal government grants to research birth tourism insist it must be protected in the name of “reproductive autonomy.” They say those who oppose it are “demonizing” and “criminalizing” non-resident pregnant people.

University of Carleton law professor Megan Gaucher believes critics of birthright citizenship are engaging in “settler-colonial” thinking that reflects “long-standing racist ideas.”

Ottawa’s Gaucher co-wrote an article on the subject with Lindsay Larios, an assistant professor of social work at the University of Manitoba who has obtained a federal grant to do collaborative research on birthright citizenship with B.C.’s Migrant Workers Centre.

Gaucher and Larios maintain attempts to portray birth tourists “as queue jumpers and citizenship fraudsters ignores the real-life obstacles they encounter within the health-care system and the Canadian immigration system.”

Larios argues that opponents who say offspring shouldn’t get citizenship because of their birth parent’s “precarious” immigration status are ignoring what she calls “reproductive justice.”

Opposition to the position set out by Gaucher and Larios has come from politicians, and medical and immigration professionals.

Rather than being disadvantaged, Griffith said, most women who engage in birth tourism come to North America with enough wealth to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for travel, accommodation (including in so-called “birth hotels”), and hospital deliveries.

The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada has said birth tourism needs further investigation. And Dr. Jon Barrett, head of obstetrics at McMaster University in Hamilton, has written that Canadian hospitals should have “absolutely zero tolerance” for it.

Doctors “should unite in a firm stand against birth tourism,” Barrett said, arguing it stresses Canada’s health-care system and puts pregnant foreign nationals at risk of being “fleeced by unethical individuals.”

An Angus Reid Institute poll found that in 2019, when Richmond Hospital was the epicentre of Canada’s birth tourism industry, that two-of-three Canadians believed “a child born to parents who are in this country on tourist visas should not be granted Canadian citizenship.”

Births to non-residents now make up 6.9 per cent of all deliveries at Richmond Hospital, which is down from 24 per cent before the pandemic. Despite this year’s jump in inquiries from people seeking to have babies in Canada because of Trump’s threat, Griffith believes the overall decline over the last few years at Richmond Hospital is owed largely to China restricting its citizens’ travel.

There is no data on whether international students in B.C. have given birth in hospitals here. International students in this province can join the Medical Services Plan by paying $75 a month. In Ontario, said Griffith, some non-resident mothers who have paid for hospital deliveries could be foreign students as that province doesn’t allow them to receive subsidized health care.

In light of a lack of government oversight of birth tourism, Griffith said there is need for more research, including like one study from Calgary. Four-of-five non-resident mothers who delivered babies in that city said their primary motivation was to give their newborn Canadian citizenship. The largest group, one-of-four, was from Nigeria.

Given the ethical issues at stake, Griffith suggests Canada, whose citizenship rules aren’t bound by a Constitution like in the U.S., take a responsible middle way in regard to birthright citizenship.

To reduce the chances of exploitation, he recommends Canada follow the lead of Australia, which allows a baby born on its soil to receive citizenship only if at least one of the child’s parents already has that status.

Source: Should birthright citizenship, banned in most countries but not Canada, be a human right?

SUN EDITORIAL: Hoist our flag? Only if you love Canada, Himmelfarb’s call to action

We did as it was and is a good non-partisan initiative. The Sun’s take on what it means to love Canada (agree with many of the points listed, without necessarily some of the jingoist and partisan language):

Joe Clark, Jean Chretien, Kim Campbell, Paul Martin and Stephen Harper issued a statement urging Canadians to show some love for our country on Flag Day.

It’s something we should all get behind.

Unless, of course, you’re one of those people who told us not to celebrate Canada Day in 2021 because this country should be ashamed of its “genocidal” past.

This country has a proud history of upholding democratic rights and freedoms. Have we got it wrong at times? Sure. The answer isn’t to wallow in grief, but to move on with determination to do better.

Don’t wave the flag if you persist in calling people “settlers” or “colonialists.” For centuries, immigrants have come to this country from around the world seeking refuge from oppression, poverty, discrimination and war. Once they’re Canadians, that’s all they are. Calling them settlers is insulting and divisive. We’re all Canadians. Full stop.

Don’t wave the flag if you demand this country change the names of our schools and institutions to erase the history of those who built this country. Ironically, those who mock President Donald Trump for changing the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America think it’s just fine to arbitrarily rename our public infrastructure. They have a sketchy knowledge of history and use a flawed process.

Don’t wave the flag if you have wrecked a statue. You cannot simultaneously destroy the leaders and educators who built this land and pretend you’re honouring it.

If you’ve been on the streets of our cities for the last 18 months waving a Palestinian flag in support of Hamas, don’t now wave the Canadian one. Hamas is a culture of hatred, antisemitism and bigotry. Those aren’t Canadian values.

And don’t wave the flag if you have referred to this country as a “post-national state with no core identity.” We’re looking at you, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Over your nine years in office, you’ve turned this country into a place where those who wave the Canadian flag are arrested.

You may call it Turtle Island. We’ll call it Canada. It’s our home and native land. And, yes, we’re immensely proud to wave its flag.

Source: EDITORIAL: Hoist our flag? Only if you love Canada

On the left, Alex Himmelfarb, former Clerk, has a call for action:

This flag day is different. The threats of economic coercion from Trump and his gang of oligarchs are meant to intimidate and divide Canadians and subjugate Canada to the will of the US regime. Instead they have ignited a surge of patriotism rarely seen in Canada. 

Inevitably some voices argue for appeasement or at least negotiation but as Churchill once said, “You cannot reason with a tiger when your head is in its mouth.” And someone else once said, I’m not sure who, “an appeaser is simply trying to convince the crocodile to eat them last.” In any case most Canadians seem to understand that this is a time to stand up for Canada and fight for our sovereign right to shape our own destiny, to say no to bullying, to stare down the threats even as we understand the risks. To cite one more wise soul, Bob Marley, “We never know how strong we are until being strong is our only choice.”

We can also draw some lessons on how to build the Canada we want as we witness the unraveling of democracy in the US and the assault on democracies everywhere, indeed the assault on the idea of democracy. We can see the dangers of a plutocracy in which a few individuals and corporations accumulate so much wealth and power that they can shape and pollute public discourse, use public institutions for their own purposes, influence world affairs, including war, and accumulate yet more wealth and power. We can see how paralyzing it is when our tools for self-governing, taxes, regulations, the state itself are demeaned and undermined. We can see the dangers to civilization and the planet when private interests trump the need to preserve the commons. We can see the horrible human costs of using hate and division to advance a political agenda. We can see the importance of robust inclusive democracy and strong countervailing institutions – unions, civil society organizations, social movements, the courts, a free press – to keep government in check. We can see the importance of international cooperation for climate action, for human rights, for peace and security.

Equality, inclusion, sustainability, solidarity – that’s what’s needed not simply to defend democracy we but to build the democracy we need, in our politics, in our workplaces, in our everyday lives. This is a time for building public power, for collective enterprise, for revitalizing industrial policy, for developing new forms of public ownership, for environmental stewardship and resolute action on the climate crisis, for strengthening the care economy, for building the social, cultural and economic infrastructure for a more resilient Canada, for taking the lead in a new internationalism. Over 65000 Canadians have so far signed the Canada pledge calling on our leaders – federal, provincial, indigenous, municipal – to work together to fight the threats and fight for the Canada we need.  Add your voice. Happy Canada Flag Day. 

Source: https://afhimelfarb.wordpress.com/2025/02/15/this-flag-day-is-different/

Barnett: Trump Might Have a Case on Birthright Citizenship, Somin: Birthright Citizenship – A Response to Barnett and Wurman

These two articles given a sense of the different legal arguments (think it is still a stretch to justify a change without an amendment).

Starting with those who believe there is a case:

…Which brings us to the children of people who are present in the United States illegally. Has a citizen of another country who violated the laws of this country to gain entry and unlawfully remain here pledged obedience to the laws in exchange for the protection and benefit of those laws?

Clearly, the parents are not enemies in the sense of an invading army, but they did not come in amity. They gave no obedience or allegiance to the country when they entered — one cannot give allegiance and promise to be bound by the laws through an act of defiance of those laws. Such persons can even be summarily removed from the country without judicial procedures of the sort that would protect citizens. If the allegiance-for-protection view informed the original meaning of the text, then they and their children are therefore not under the protection or “subject to the jurisdiction” of the nation in the relevant sense.

The executive order’s exclusion of children born to mothers who are “lawful but temporary” residents is a more complicated question not addressed here. And whether Congress ought to grant naturalized citizenship to children born to those illegally present in the United States is a policy issue distinct from whether the 14th Amendment has already done so. The Supreme Court has, in a footnote, presumed that the 14th Amendment’s jurisdictional phrase applied equally to people who are here illegally, but the issue was neither briefed nor argued in that case; nor was it material to its outcome.

When they finally consider this question, the justices will find that the case for Mr. Trump’s order is stronger than his critics realize.

Randy E. Barnett is a professor of constitutional law at the Georgetown University Law Center and an author of “The Original Meaning of the 14th Amendment: Its Letter and Spirit.” Ilan Wurman is a professor of constitutional law at the University of Minnesota and the author of “The Second Founding: An Introduction to the 14th Amendment.”

Source: Trump Might Have a Case on Birthright Citizenship

Somin’s rebuttal:

In a recent New York Times op ed, legal scholars Randy Barnett and Ilan Wurman offer a partial defense of President Trump’s executive order denying birthright citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants, and migrants in the US on temporary visas. The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment grants citizenship to anyone “born … in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The standard view of this provision is that it covers everyone born in the United States that is subject to US law, and thus, as the Supreme Court explained in the 1898 Wong Kim Ark case “includ[es] all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications… of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes.” The Indians “owing direct allegiance to their several tribes” were excluded because Indian nations were distinct sovereigns exempt from many US laws. For this reason, four federal courts have ruled against Trump’s order.

Barnett and Wurman argue that only people born in the United States at a time when their parents have traded “allegiance” for “protection” truly qualify as under the jurisdiction of the United States. They contend that illegal migrants haven’t made any such compact with the US, and therefore don’t qualify.

Barnett and Wurman cite an 1862 opinion by Attorney General Edward Bates stating that “The Constitution uses the word ‘citizen’ only to express the political quality of the individual in his relations to the nation; to declare that he is a member of the body politic, and bound to it by the reciprocal obligation of allegiance on the one side and protection on the other.” Barnett and Wurman claim the Citizenship Clause is based on a social contract theory under which people enter into a “social compact” with the government, trading allegiance for the protection of the laws.

There are several flaws in Barnett and Wurman’s “allegiance-for-protection” theory. The biggest is that, if consistently applied, it would undermine the central purpose the Citizenship Clause: extending citizenship to recently freed slaves and their descendants. Slaves born in the United States (and their parents, who were also usually slaves) obviously weren’t part of any social compact under which they traded allegiance for protection. Far from protecting them, state and federal governments facilitated their brutal oppression at the hands of their masters.

This situation changed, to an extent, with the abolition of slavery through the Thirteenth Amendment. But  the “subject to the jurisdiction” language of the Citizenship Clause refers to people subject to that jurisdiction at the time they were born. For example, the child of a foreign diplomat doesn’t get birthright citizenship if her parents later lose their diplomatic immunity. If being subject to US jurisdiction requires a compact trading allegiance for protection, former slaves obviously didn’t qualify. Thus, the Barnett-Wurman theory would defeat the central purpose of the Citizenship Clause. That alone is reason to reject it.

Another problem with their analysis is that they rely almost exclusively on sources interpreting the nature of citizenship before enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment, such as the 1862 Bates opinion. But the whole point of the Citizenship Clause was to expand the range of people eligible for birthright citizenship, to include former slaves. Thus, we should not assume that the Citizenship Clause is limited by previous understandings.

Barnett and Wurman do not consider extensive evidence from the period during and immediately after enactment, of the kind canvassed by scholars such as Michael Ramsey in his detailed 2020 article on this subject. That evidence, as Ramsey explains, strongly supports birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented migrants.

Barnett and Wurman argue that the traditional view cannot explain seeming anomalies, such as “the status of children born to citizens residing within enemy-occupied territory, who appear to have been considered citizens if their parents remained loyal… [a]nd… the status of children born to foreigners on foreign public vessels in U.S. waters, who were not considered citizens.” These aren’t actually anomalies at all. As the Supreme Court ruled in 1812, foreign public vessels in US territorial waters remain under the sovereignty of their governments, and therefore are not within US jurisdiction. Citizens residing within enemy-held territory remain under an obligation to follow US law, and that duty can be enforced upon them in a way it cannot be on foreign troops (for example through prosecutions undertaken after the US recaptures the territory).

Finally, it’s important to remember that, as Gabriel Chin and Paul Finkelman have shown, the freed slaves whose children were covered  by the Citizenship Clause included a large population that had entered the US illegally, by virtue of being brought in after the federal government banned the slave trade in 1808. This shows that illegal entry was not considered a barrier to being under US jurisdiction.

Even if valid, the Barnett-Wurman theory only partially justifies Trump’s order. That order excludes not just children of illegal entrants, but those born to migrants who entered legally on temporary visas. But their argument fails with respect to children of the undocumented, as well. At the very least, it is not strong enough to overcome decades of contrary precedent and practice, thereby subjecting hundreds of thousands of innocent children to the trauma of deportation.

Source: Birthright Citizenship – A Response to Barnett and Wurman

Canadian Immigration Tracker – December 2024 update and full-year comparisons

Full Year 2024 annual comparisons

  • Permanent residents admissions: From 449,00 in 2023 to 482,000 in 2024 or 7.3 percent.   
  • TR2PR (Those already in Canada): From 244,000 in 2023 to 247,000 in 2024 or 1.3 percent. 
  • TRs-IMP: From 874,000 in 2023 to 746,000 in 2024 or -14.7 percent. Significant decrease in PGWP and spouses
  • TRs-TFWP: From 191,000 in 2023 to 198,000 in 2024 or 3.6 percent.
  • Students: From 709,000 in 2023 to 540,000 in 2024 or -28.9 percent. Post-secondary only: Decline from 544,000 to 387,000 or 23.9 percent.
  • Asylum Claimants: From 149,000 in 2023 to 175,000 in 2024 or 17.5 percent.
  • Citizenship: From 377,000 in 2023 to 372,000 in 2024 or -1.3 percent.
  • Visitor Visas: From 1,846,000 in 2023 to 1,478,000 in 2024 or -19.9 percent.
  • Note settlement services and citizenship application numbers for 2024 requested and will post when received.

Canadian Immigration Tracker – December 2024 update and full-year comparisons

UK to reject ‘dangerous journey’ refugees citizenship

Not sure how that will withstand legal challenges but we shall see:

The government has toughened up rules making it almost impossible for a refugee who arrives in the UK on a small boat to become a British citizen.

New guidance states that anyone who enters the UK illegally having made a dangerous journey, which could be via boat, but also by means such as hiding in a vehicle, will normally be refused citizenship, regardless of the time that has passed.

In a statement, the Home Office said the strengthened measures made it clear that anyone who entered the UK illegally would face having a British citizenship application refused.

But, the change has been condemned by the Refugee Council and some Labour MPs – including Stella Creasy who said the change “meant refugees would forever remain second class citizens”.

Changes, first disclosed by the Free Movement blog, were introduced to guidance for visa and immigration staff on Monday.

The changes mean that anyone deemed to have entered the country illegally – including those already here – will not be able to apply for citizenship.

Described as a “clarification” to case worker guidance when assessing if a claimant is of “good character’, it says: “Any person applying for citizenship from 10 February 2025, who previously entered the UK illegally will normally be refused, regardless of the time that has passed since the illegal entry took place.”

Another new entry to the same guidance says: “A person who applies for citizenship from 10 February 2025 who has previously arrived without a required valid entry clearance or electronic travel authorisation, having made a dangerous journey will normally be refused citizenship.

“A dangerous journey includes, but is not limited to, travelling by small boat or concealed in a vehicle or other conveyance.”

Previously, refugees who had arrived by irregular routes would need to wait ten years before being considered.

Under international law, people are allowed to seek asylum, but the government’s move to strengthen its border control and laws on entry, will prevent some people from doing so.

It comes after Labour’s new border security bill, which scraps the Conservatives’ Rwanda plan and boosts police powers against people smugglers, cleared its first vote in the House of Commons on Monday.

The Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill sets out Labour’s plan to treat people smugglers like terrorists, and creates a new crime of endangering another person during an illegal crossing in the Channel.

The Home Office also published footage of enforcement teams raiding 828 premises, including nail bars, car washes, and restaurants, as part of a UK-wide crackdown on illegal working earlier this week.

The Refugee Council estimates the guidance will prevent at least 71,000 refugees from obtaining British citizenship.

Enver Solomon, CEO of the charity, said the government’s move “flies in the face of reason”.

“The British public want refugees who have been given safety in our country to integrate into and contribute to their new communities, so it makes no sense for the government to erect more barriers.

“We know that men women and children who are refugees want to feel part of the country that has given them a home, and support to rebuild their lives.

“We urge ministers to urgently reconsider.”

Meanwhile, immigration barrister Colin Yeo claimed on social media that it is a “clear breach of the refugee convention”.

Although the Conservatives have yet to respond to the government’s decision, Tory leader Kemi Badenoch told the BBC last week that she believes the right to citizenship and permanent residency “should only go to those who have demonstrated a real commitment to the UK”.

Badenoch spoke about her proposals to toughen up citizenship rules by making it more difficult for new immigrants to be able to permanently settle in the UK.

Citizenship applications will continue to be considered on a case-by-case basis, it is understood.

A Home Office spokesperson said: “There are already rules that can prevent those arriving illegally from gaining citizenship.

“This guidance further strengthens measures to make it clear that anyone who enters the UK illegally, including small boat arrivals, faces having a British citizenship application refused.”

Source: UK to reject ‘dangerous journey’ refugees citizenship

Semowo: It’s Black History Month. Let’s Move Inclusion Beyond Visibility

Nice to see academics interested in citizenship and the various study guides over the year that overall indicate progress. However, policy makers have to decide how much to include in a guide, how much detail on particular groups and history, keeping in mind the need for simple language, the audience of new Canadians and related needs of being concise.

As well as the balance between portraying a positive image of Canada to those becoming citizens while acknowledging less positive historical and current issues.

Suspect that many groups could make similar critiques without acknowledging the need for balance and perspective.

Unclear that the revised guide, under preparation under at least four IRCC Liberal ministers would equally meet Semowo’s criteria for inclusion. And of course, there is no formal citizenship education under the settlement program, an ongoing gap:

A Canada where Blackness was overlooked

Since 1947, the federal government has published citizenship study guides to help new immigrants prepare for citizenship tests.

These guides are more than bureaucratic texts; they frame Canada’s shared identity and values for newcomers. Yet for much of the 20th century, they presented a Canada relatively devoid of Blackness.

Canada’s first citizenship study guide failed to mention Black Canadians at all. Instead, the guide celebrated British and French heritage while paying scant attention to Indigenous Peoples and other racialized communities.

Subsequent guides beginning in 1963 included either an image, text or both describing people of African descent. However, their inclusion was sparse and narrowly focused, signalling that Blackness is peripheral to Canadian identity.

The 1995 study guide entitled A Look at Canada briefly acknowledged Black Loyalists but overlooked their struggles in Nova Scotia, where many were denied the land they were promised.

Africville, a Black community razed in the 1960s, was notably absent. Indeed, many Canadians remain unaware of Africville or the civil rights activist Viola Desmond, whose defiance against segregation in 1946 is often overshadowed by more well-known American figures, such as Rosa Parks.

This lack of visibility in official narratives not only disconnects Black Canadians from their own history but also perpetuates the myth that systemic anti-Black racism is solely a U.S. problem.

A recent study guide from 2009 titled Discover Canada presented a few notable figures, such as the athlete Marjorie Turner-Bailey, abolitionist publisher Mary Ann Shadd Cary and Victoria Cross recipient able seaman William Hall.

These provide valuable recognition of Black Canadians’ historical presence and struggles.

However, their inclusion follows a pattern of narrow representation, where Black history is framed primarily through individual achievements rather than part of a broader discussion on systemic barriers.

While the guide, a version of which is still in use today, acknowledged slavery, abolition and Black migration, it does not deeply engage with ongoing racial inequities in Canada, such as economic disparities and segregation. This tokenization mirrors patterns in real life.

Black Canadians are often called upon to represent diversity in workplaces or public events, but these gestures rarely challenge the structures that perpetuate inequality.

Similarly, the citizenship study guides’ brief mentions of Black Canadians create the impression that inclusion has been achieved, leaving deeper systemic issues unacknowledged and unaddressed. 2009’s Discover Canada praised the bravery of Black soldiers in both World Wars yet omitted the fact that many were initially denied the opportunity to serve in the military.

Minimalization also occurs when Blackness is reduced to narratives of struggle. While it is vital to honour the fight against slavery and segregation, the guides rarely highlight Black joy and innovation.

This framing not only flattens the complexity of Black experiences but also risks perpetuating stereotypes that limit how Black Canadians are perceived.

‘Selective inclusion’

One of the most revealing insights from the citizenship guides is how they reflect selective inclusion. In 2009’s Discover Canada, for instance, Canadian multiculturalism is celebrated as a cornerstone of national identity.

Yet the guide devotes far more space to Canadians of European descent, reinforcing a hierarchy of who is most celebrated in the national story.

This reflects a broader reality: Black Canadians are often welcomed in limited contexts, such as sports and entertainment, while facing systemic exclusion in areas like politics, corporate leadership and academia. For example, while Canada has celebrated athletes like Donovan Bailey and acclaimed writers like Esi Edugyan, Black representation in federal politics remains disproportionately low.

These issues — of selective inclusion and systemic exclusion — are especially important to highlight now because the dismantling of DEI policies in the U.S. can have a chilling effect across North America: conversations about systemic racism can be labelled as divisive, and efforts to address historical exclusions may be dismissed as unnecessary.

If Canada is to uphold its commitment to diversity, it must critically examine how its own narratives have shaped belonging.

Here in Canada, the federal Conservative Party leaders have been attacking diversity, equity and inclusion efforts. Within progressive circles, our DEI efforts often face criticism — that is, more about optics than meaningful change.

‘Inclusion must go beyond visibility’

As we reflect on Black History Month, our citizenship study guides offer an important lesson: inclusion must go beyond visibility.

It is not enough to name a few figures or reference historic injustices without addressing the reality of anti-Black racism in Canada today — a fact newcomers to Canada not only deserve, but need, to know.

A meaningful way forward would be to integrate Black history more fully into the newcomer education curriculum, ensuring that stories like Africville and Viola Desmond’s trial are seen as essential parts of Canadian history, not as footnotes.

Black History Month is also a reminder that diversity is not just about celebrating achievements but about creating systems that allow all Canadians to thrive.

Citizenship, in its fullest sense, means belonging—not just in the abstract but in the lived experience of equity, recognition and opportunity.

The evolution of the citizenship guides shows progress but also highlights how much work remains.

As we move forward, we must commit to telling the whole story of Canada — a story where Blackness is not erased, tokenized or selectively included, but embraced as integral to the fabric of this nation

Source: It’s Black History Month. Let’s Move Inclusion Beyond Visibility