‘An ordeal that doesn’t end’: Lost Canadians’ citizenship at risk with Parliament suspended

More on C-71 and impact of prorogation:

Shortly after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau suspended Parliament on Monday, Carol Sutherland-Brown’s phone started ringing.

The calls were coming from other people whose families have been caught up in the longstanding “lost Canadians” fiasco and are concerned about the fate of the highly anticipated citizenship reforms proposed in Bill C-71.

The Ottawa grandmother and others have been fighting to reclaim the citizenship rights taken away from their families under Canada’s current second-generation cut-off rule, which denies automatic citizenship to children born abroad because their parents also happened to be born overseas.

More than a year ago, an Ontario court found the law unconstitutional and gave the federal government six months to change it to make it Charter-compliant. The Liberal government introduced Bill C-71 to fix the problem, but the deadline has already been extended three times, to March 19.

This legislation would automatically confer Canadian citizenship on people born abroad before the changes are enacted to a Canadian parent who was also born abroad. Anyone born outside the country subsequently would need to prove their foreign-born Canadian parent had a “substantial connection” with Canada by meeting a residency requirement.

With the prorogation of Parliament until March 24, the bill has now died on the order paper, and a new one would have to be tabled when the House returns. It would be subject to the legislative process from scratch again.

The lost Canadians’ families fear that if a confidence vote follows, as expected, it will topple the Liberals and usher in a Conservative government. It was a Conservative government that brought in the second-generation citizenship cut-off in 2009 to begin with.

“This has been an ordeal for me and for the other families, an ordeal that doesn’t end,” said Sutherland-Brown. Her daughter was born in Saudi Arabia, and two grandchildren were born in the U.K. As a result, the grandchildren lost their Canadian citizenship rights by descent. “We don’t know what a new government will do.”

Lawyer Sujit Choudhry, who represented lost Canadians in the successful court challenge, said the government has two options: to go before the court for another extension or let the citizenship law be declared unconstitutional.

However, both are problematic.

While there have been similar precedents where the government was granted extensions to comply with court orders, he said the requests were made because Parliament was dissolved and an election was called, and not due to prorogation.

“The question in March will be whether this is the time for this to come to an end , or whether, given the unique political circumstances, some more time should be given,” said Choudhry. “What will the government say in court? Well, they’d say a dissolution is imminent, but it hasn’t happened yet.” 

If Ottawa lets the deadline lapse and the two-generation cut-off is thus voided, affected lost Canadians could just come reclaim their citizenship. If the court cuts the government some slack and grants another extension in light of the circumstances, the uncertainty will continue.

“During that extension period, we could very well be in an election, in which case, no bills could be passed,” said MP Jenny Kwan, immigration critic of the opposition NDP, and a staunch supporter of the bill.

“After the election, whoever forms government would have to take further actions to be compliant with the court decision. We have to remember that it was the Conservatives who brought in this unconstitutional provision 15 years ago.”

In 2009, the then-Conservative government changed the citizenship law and imposed the second-generation cut-off on Canadians born abroad, after Ottawa had faced a massive effort to evacuate 15,000 Lebanese Canadians stranded in Beirut during Israel’s month-long war against Hezbollah in 2006.

The $85-million price tag of the evacuation effort sparked a debate over “Canadians of convenience.” The government abolished the existing “substantial connection” regime and adopted a blanket rule that denies the first generation born abroad the right to pass on citizenship by descent outside Canada to the second generation born abroad. 

Tunisian-born Majda Dabaghi, whose two children were born in France and hence can’t be Canadian citizens by descent, is concerned about a Conservative return to power given the party’s efforts to block C-71 and a similar bill previously. (The Conservative party didn’t respond to a request for comment.)

The cut-off rule “was a racist response to the evacuation of dual nationals out of Lebanon,” said Dabaghi, who has continued to vote in Canadian elections after she left Canada in 2007 for a job in international law in the U.K. 

“They have done everything humanly possible to filibuster the passing of the legislation, both in the form of Bill C-71 and earlier in the form of Bill S-245. They have put their own politics and political gamesmanship above sound policy, people’s lives and our Constitution.”

Calling Bill C-71 “a crucial piece of legislation,” Immigration Minister Marc Miller also blamed the Conservatives for stalling it. While his office would not say if the government will request that the court grant another extension, it said “Minister Miller is confident that a Liberal government would reintroduce this important bill to the House once resumed.”

Although Christina Matula’s two children — born in England and Hong Kong — are Canadian citizens, she said she’s fighting for their rights to explore the world and work abroad without having to worry about where to start a family.

And she said both the Liberals and Conservatives are at fault because the former also failed to prioritize and expedite the introduction and passing of the bill despite the court order in December 2023.

Her children, now 17 and 14, have attended Canadian international schools, participated in Terry Fox runs and visited family in Canada every summer and Christmas, said Matula, whose family now lives in Finland.

“My children are Canadian by descent and have strong ties to Canada,” she said “I want them to have clear and fair criteria to prove their connection to Canada, so they can have the same rights as Canadian-born and naturalized citizens.”

Source: ‘An ordeal that doesn’t end’: Lost Canadians’ citizenship at risk with Parliament suspended

Chris Selley: Liberals’ failed citizenship bill will soon be the Conservatives’ problem

Conservatives should simply introduce a bill similar to C-71 but requiring the residency requirement be met within a five-year period as per permanent residents:

There is much for conservatives to celebrate about the death of the Liberals’ legislative agenda, which is one of the chief effects of proroguing Parliament: Every government bill in progress “cease(s) to exist,” as the House of Commons’ procedural website puts it, and would in theory have to start at square one once Parliament returns on March 24. In practice, of course, the only real order of business then will be bringing down the government. It is an ex-legislative agenda.

The death of Bill C-71, however, which would have amended the Citizenship Act with respect to so-called “second-generation-born-abroad” children of Canadian citizens, is potentially a serious problem. It’s at the very least a problem, and it’s one the Conservatives need a plan to solve starting on Day One.

I’ll try to explain the issue as simply as I can.

Once upon a time, Canadian citizenship could be passed down through the generations essentially forever: So long as you were a Canadian citizen, no matter how much time (if any) you had spent here, your children had an automatic birthright to citizenship. The Harper government changed the law in 2009: People who were born as Canadian citizens in other countries could no longer pass on citizenship to any of their children who were also born abroad.

The law has produced some maddening and very sad situations, which I have written about in the past. But most cases are probably more like my friends Tim and Emily’s — not disastrous, just arbitrary and pointless.

Tim and Emily were both born in Canada as Canadian citizens; both were raised and educated in Canada. They moved to Dubai for a few years to work, as tens of thousands of Canadians do, and had their daughter Tina there. Tina automatically became a Canadian citizen. They then moved back to Canada, where their son Mike was born. (These aren’t their real names.)

Were Mike to have a daughter in Dubai in the future, she would automatically be Canadian. Were Tina to have a daughter in Dubai in the future, she would not automatically be Canadian, because she would be the “second generation born abroad.”

(Bizarrely, Tina has lesser rights in this respect than a naturalized citizen. If you immigrate to Canada and become a citizen, the Citizenship Act considers you to have been born in Canada for the purposes of passing on citizenship.)

In December 2023, Justice Jasmine Akbarali of the Ontario Superior Court struck down this rule, which lives in a single section of the Citizenship Act, as unconstitutional. She gave the government six months to craft a legislative remedy.

That remedy was Bill C-71, which allowed people like Tina  to pass on citizenship to children born abroad so long as they could demonstrate a “substantial connection” to Canada — namely having spent 1,095 days in the country over the previous five years. It’s exactly what we require immigrants to demonstrate before they can receive citizenship. It seemed reasonable enough to constitutional lawyer Sujit Choudhry, who represented the applicants at the Ontario Superior Court.

“We thought that was fair. It was simple, it was equitable. It’s a rule that (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada) administers every day in relation to permanent residents who are naturalizing,” says Choudhry.

For some reason the Liberals decided to go much further. Most notably, Bill C-71 grants “citizenship by descent (to) all persons who were born outside Canada … to a parent who was a citizen” before the new law took effect. That’s an awful lot of people with the stroke of a pen — no one really knows how many; last month, the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated 115,000 — at a time when people want more control over immigration, not less. It also doesn’t cut off at the second generation: Third and fourth generations born abroad could receive citizenship if a parent could demonstrate this substantial connection.

The Liberals having lost any ability to govern, Justice Akbarali granted the government three extensions to her original six-month deadline. The third she granted “reluctantly,” emphasizing her displeasure at the government’s lack of “legislative diligence” but noting that “the interests of the public will be negatively affected if (her ruling) comes into force without replacement legislation in place.”

And there, for the Conservatives, is the rub. If the section of the Citizenship Act that Akbarali struck down simply disappears with nothing to replace it, we wouldn’t return to the status quo circa 2022. We would return to the status quo circa 2008: unlimited hereditary citizenship, which no one wants or is asking for.

“Allowing (my ruling) to take effect without replacement legislation would … result in … an unknowable number of people becoming automatic Canadian citizens,” Akbarali wrote.

That third extension expires on March 19, before Parliament could even theoretically get back to work on the file. In light of that, and of Akbarali’s previously stated concerns, odds are the government will ask for and receive another extension. But all that does is punt the ball to Pierre Poilievre’s first citizenship minister, who most certainly will not want to be seen opening the floodgates to any real or perceived “citizens of convenience.”

My impression of the Conservatives on this file is that they don’t want to be seen supporting what could be viewed as more generous citizenship laws. They want citizenship to have more value, not less, both practically and philosophically — and I’m all for that. But there is nothing remotely unpatriotic about working abroad for a few years, even if you happen to have been born abroad while your parents did the same. And it doesn’t bolster the value of citizenship to make life difficult for people who follow this very common life path.

The Liberals were most of the way to a perfectly reasonable remedy. The Conservatives should adopt the “substantial connection” test as their own, probably with a cutoff at the second generation, ditch the weird blanket citizenship-grant, pass it quickly and move on to tougher issues.

Source: Chris Selley: Liberals’ failed citizenship bill will soon be the Conservatives’ problem

Sweden to Implement Stricter Checks on Citizenship Applicants

Of note:

KEY TAKEAWAYS

  • Sweden will tighten controls on those applying for citizenship.
  • The decision comes in a bid to enhance national security and prevent people who pose a security risk from obtaining citizenship in Sweden.
  • The Swedish Migration Board will take forceful measures to ensure that requirements in citizenship cases are maintained.

In a bid to prevent people who pose a security risk from becoming Swedish citizens, authorities in this country will further tighten controls on those who apply for citizenship.

The decision has been confirmed through a press release from the government of Sweden, Schengen.News reports.

Upon the government’s request, the Swedish Migration Board will take further and forceful measures to ensure that requirements in citizenship cases are maintained.

It is currently practically impossible to regain citizenship. This underlines the importance of never granting Swedish citizenship to people who may pose a threat to Swedish security.

Migration Minister Johan Forssell (M)

Tightened Measures to Enhance National Security

The Swedish Migration Agency announced stricter measures in October of last year for those wishing to obtain citizenship in this country.

Among the measures are the detection of potential security threats, as well as the control and implementation of a system for the revocation of residence permits and tightened ID controls.

As part of measures to enhance national security, Sweden notified the European Commission for further extension of controls at all air, sea, and land borders, which were scheduled to end on November 12, 2024, until May 11, 2025.

Serious threats to public policy and internal security posed by recent terrorism-related events and serious crime associated with an ongoing armed conflict in the organized and gang-related crime environment; all internal borders (land, air, and sea).

Sweden’s notification to the EU

Notable Increase in Rejection Rates

The Security Service of Sweden years ago said that the rejection rate of citizenship applications was approximately 100-180 cases per year for security reasons, while in 2023, the number was 756, and in 2024, 543.

Migration Minister Johan Forssell (M) said that Sweden is seeing a very sharp increase. He indicated that the new measures could require an applicant to appear in person for identification and that oral investigations can be conducted more often.

It happens very rarely these days. If you do that, you get a lot more information. If you have a person in front of you, you can ask counter-questions and check a story.

Migration Minister Johan Forssell (M)

More Than 33,000 Granted Citizenships in 2024

Last year, 33,633 people acquired citizenship in Sweden, based on the figures provided by the Swedish Migration Agency.

The same source revealed that the top nationalities that obtained citizenship in 2024 were nationals of Syria (4,192) and Eritrea(3,466), followed by those from Afghanistan (2,519).

Source: Sweden to Implement Stricter Checks on Citizenship Applicants

Liberals set tighter rules for coming leadership race amid foreign interference concerns

Finally reading the room! One can argue about the age but the party has done the necessary in limiting participation to citizens and Permanent Residents:

The Liberals will pick a new leader to replace Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on March 9 under tighter new rules meant to address concerns about potential foreign interference.

Trudeau’s successor will take the reigns of the party just weeks before parliament is set to resume on Mar. 24. The government is almost certain to face a non-confidence vote which would trigger a spring election.

The Liberal Party board decided it will restrict voting rights in the leadership race to permanent residents and Canadian citizens in contrast to its wide-open approach which previously allowed non-Canadians to vote.

“Protecting the integrity of our democratic process, while still engaging as many people as possible, is one of the Liberal Party of Canada’s top priorities,” the party said in a release. 

The party retained rules that allow minors as young as 14 to become registered Liberals and to cast a vote.

To be a registered Liberal, an individual must simply “support the purposes of the party,” not be a member of any other federal party and not have declared to be a candidate for any other federal party.

Source: Liberals set tighter rules for coming leadership race amid foreign interference concerns

Opinion | The Diaspora Dilemma: Taxation, Dual Citizenship, And Voting Rights

Interesting take from an Indian perspective (interestingly, Canada does not figure among destination countries perhaps reflecting fewer taxation issues but Canadian NRIs form 6.4 percent of total, 2024 data):

In 2023, India received a staggering $125 billion in remittances. The number of NRI and OCI card holders is upwards of 32 million individuals. The numbers are staggering, undeniably highlighting the immense contribution of the Indian diaspora. However, beneath these impressive figures lies a complex relationship, a balancing act between celebrating the global Indian presence and addressing their very real challenges and aspirations.

The Tax‘ing’ Reality

One of the most persistent hurdles for Non-Resident Indians (NRIs) is navigating the labyrinthine Indian tax system. Double taxation looms large, a significant concern for many. Indeed, a recent survey revealed that double taxation is a primary concern for a considerable percentage of NRIs across various countries: 14.11 per cent in Australia, 13.10 per cent in the UK, and 8.06 per cent in the US, to be precise.

Compounding this issue is the difficulty in accessing necessary taxation documents from abroad. The same survey highlighted this struggle, with 12.10 per cent of NRIs in the US, 9.05 per cent in the UK, and 6.02 per cent in Australia reporting this as a major challenge.

Furthermore, accessing crucial taxation documents from abroad adds another layer of difficulty. For 12.10 per cent of NRIs in the US, 9.05 per cent in the UK, and 6.02 per cent in Australia, simply obtaining the necessary paperwork is a significant challenge.

Despite government efforts, tax-related issues continue to proliferate. Streamlining these processes would be a tangible step towards acknowledging the economic contributions of the diaspora.

A Voice Without A Vote?

Democracy thrives on participation, yet for many NRIs, the right to exercise their franchise remains largely symbolic. The numbers paint a concerning picture of poor electoral participation among overseas Indian voters in the 2024 Lok Sabha polls. Despite nearly 1.2 lakh NRIs registering as electors, a minuscule number actually turned up to vote.

The Election Commission’s data reveals a stark truth: only 2,958 overseas electors flew down to India to participate in the “largest democratic exercise in the world,” and a staggering 2,670 of those were from Kerala alone. The fact that several large states like Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh, and Tamil Nadu saw zero turnout of overseas electors speaks volumes.

The reasons behind this dismal participation are not hard to fathom. The current electoral law mandates that registered NRI voters must physically travel to their respective Lok Sabha and assembly constituencies to cast their vote, presenting their original passports as proof of identity. This requirement poses significant logistical and financial hurdles. Travel costs, employment obligations, and educational commitments abroad make it virtually impossible for the vast majority of NRIs to exercise their right to vote.

The Election Commission itself acknowledges these challenges, having proposed extending the Electronically Transmitted Postal Ballot System (ETPBS) facility to overseas voters – a move that, unfortunately, is still in the works.

The Dual Citizenship Conundrum

The concept of dual citizenship for Indians living abroad is a topic of enduring debate, fraught with both promise and perceived peril. As External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar rightly pointed out in 2023, offering dual citizenship presents “security and economic challenges.” Concerns linger about the potential for divided loyalties and the complexities of managing citizens with allegiance to multiple nations.

However, the desire for dual citizenship among the diaspora is palpable, driven by a yearning to maintain their connection with India while fully participating in their adopted homelands.

The OCI card, while offering certain privileges like multiple entries and a lifelong visa, falls short of granting full citizenship rights. It excludes OCIs from political and electoral life, preventing them from holding government jobs or acquiring agricultural land. For many, the OCI status feels like a consolation prize, not a true recognition of their continued connection to India.

NRIs And National Interest

India’s diaspora is far more than just a reliable source of remittances; it’s a vibrant and powerful extension of India’s global influence. Their achievements paint a compelling picture of Indian talent and capability on the world stage. Consider the example of Indian-origin CEOs leading global tech giants – their success stories become India’s success stories, bolstering its image as a hub of innovation and technological prowess.

Similarly, the growing number of Indian-origin politicians in positions of power across Western nations offers India valuable access and understanding within these critical geopolitical spheres.

This widespread network acts as a bridge, fostering greater cultural understanding and goodwill. The global popularity of Indian cuisine, yoga, and Bollywood, often championed and celebrated by the diaspora, introduces aspects of Indian culture to a wider audience, creating a positive association with the country. Moreover, these established communities often serve as vital conduits for diplomatic and economic engagement.

Bridging The Divide

The challenges faced by the Indian diaspora are not insurmountable. Addressing them requires a nuanced approach that carefully balances national interests with the genuine needs and aspirations of its global citizenry. Streamlining taxation processes, exploring viable options for remote voting, and seriously considering the merits of dual citizenship are crucial steps towards fostering a more robust and mutually beneficial relationship. Ignoring the challenges risks alienating a significant segment of the Indian community, a community whose contributions are vital to India’s economic and cultural standing on the world stage.

Source: Opinion | The Diaspora Dilemma: Taxation, Dual Citizenship, And Voting Rights

Jamie Sarkonak: Good riddance to all the Liberal bills that Trudeau just culled

…Also dead is that bill that would have made thousands of people around the world eligible for Canadian citizenship.

Bill C-71, if you remember, would give the children of Canadians born abroad citizenship through descent, as long as the parents can establish a “substantial connection” to Canada. The guardrail wouldn’t be a secure one, since some judges don’t believe that there are any citizens who lack a connection to the country.

The bill’s proponents marketed it as a remedy to a rare problem that sometimes afflicts Canadian families who live abroad, such as military families. However, in trying to solve their problems, the bill would have made it much easier for citizenship to be obtained by the grandchildren of birth tourists (people who who travel to Canada to give birth, which secures Canadian citizenship for their child)…

Source: Jamie Sarkonak: Good riddance to all the Liberal bills that Trudeau just culled

Saudi Arabia presses Florida man to give up US citizenship over critical tweets, family says

Of note:

Saudi Arabia has forced a Florida retiree to try to renounce his American citizenship after jailing him over social media posts critical of the kingdom’s crown prince, according to the man’s son.

The retiree, 74-year-old Saad Almadi, is one of at least four dual Saudi-American nationals who accuse Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s government of pressuring them to give up their U.S. citizenship, a U.S.-based Middle East human rights group said.

The alleged tactic by a key strategic partner of the U.S., which has not been previously reported, tracks with similar efforts to silence even mild criticism, including the threat of imprisonment and exit bans like the one that has kept Almadi from returning to the U.S. after being released from more than a year in a Saudi prison.

“There are Saudi princes that come to the U.S. for routine medical checkups, so why can’t an American citizen return home for his health?” Ibrahim Almadi said of his father.

“It’s all because we don’t want to upset our ally’s feelings,” he said in an interview from Washington. “If this were Russia, Iran or North Korea, he would’ve been declared wrongfully detained months ago.”

The Saudi Embassy in Washington acknowledged receiving a request for comment on the allegations but did not otherwise respond. The Saudi government doesn’t recognize dual citizenship. It regularly rejects criticism of its actions, saying they are part of a multiyear crackdown on corruption, terrorism and other security threats.

The plight of the elder Almadi and others could complicate U.S. efforts to turn the page on tensions arising from the 2018 killing of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi….

Source: Saudi Arabia presses Florida man to give up US citizenship over critical tweets, family says


















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.