C-24 Citizenship Act: On to Third Reading – June 3

2014/06/04 Leave a comment

Committee debate on C-24 concluded June 3rd with the Bill approved in its entirety without amendment along party lines.

A large focus of the debate was on revocation (clause 8). Liberals proposed amendments, all rejected:

  • Requiring Minister to hold on independent hearing for revocation fraud, rather than Ministerial discretion;
  • Onus of proof for dual citizenship should be on government, not citizen; and,
  • Full judicial appeal for revocation fraud cases, rather than leave to the Federal Court.

NDP did not table amendments but rather focussed on the principles and approach behind revocation, focussing on how it created two classes of citizenship, and discriminatory treatment between single or dual nationals. Citizenship was not “like a drivers licence,” and was not just a privilege but also a right. Concern was also expressed about judicial processes in foreign jurisdiction and that even a right to another citizenship could mean revocation even if minimal or no connection to that country. Moreover, constitutionality of revocation for dual nationals was very questionable.

Government responded by restating that C-24 had been reviewed by the Minister of Justice and was Charter compliant. He spoke to the equivalence to Canadian crimes but was less specific as to equivalency of judicial processes aside from noting that Minister had power to waive revocation if concerns about foreign justice processes. He said “nobody wants a terrorist as a neighbour” and that we are talking about criminals, not law-abiding citizens. He didn’t know anyone “who wants them to keep citizenship” and that this send a strong message that Canada should not be a haven for terrorists.

Other amendments (all defeated) and opposition included:

  • Clause 9 (Canadian Forces credit): deletion of “intent to reside”;
  • Clause 11 (application suspension): concerns over increased Ministerial discretion;
  • Clause  12 (citizenship judge): changing onus of proof of “intent to reside” provision to Minister from applicants, as well as reducing Ministerial discretion;
  • Clause 14 (timelines): concerns expressed regarding the short delay for applicants to prepare their case (30 days);
  • Clause 15 (suspicion of security risks): concerns that innocent people could be affected;
  • Clause 18 (consultants): addition of law students to those permitted to provide consultant services;
  • Clause 19 (offences outside Canada): concerns regarding foreign judicial processes and lack of clarity on how these would be judged to be equivalent or not to Canadian processes;
  • Clause 20 (judicial review with leave): opposition to no longer providing applicants full right of appeal and concerns about Ministerial discretion;
  • Clause 31 (transition measures) amendment to grandfather current permanent residents in the system.

The most lively exchange came at the end on the ostensible issue of the proposed title, Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act.

The NDP started off by noting their support for addressing Lost Canadian issues, new penalties for fraud, and greater clarification of the rules around residency. However, some elements were very problematic and weakened citizenship, in particularly, intent to reside, elimination of credit for pre-permanent residency time, and revocation. She challenged again the constitutionality of proposed revocation for dual nationals, noting the testimony of lawyers, as well as the Government’s record before the courts. The NDP’s own consultations indicated considerable opposition, and she cited the recent petition against C-24 with more than 25,000 signatures.

The NDP was extremely frustrated by the process and deplored that the Government had not listened to witnesses (“pourquoi les avoir invités?”). The Government had not accepted any, nor proposed any, amendments. The Government remained “entêtés dans son idéologie.” “C’était ridicule” as citizenship concerned fundamental rights.

The Government responded to what he called a “rant.”. Canadians “gave the government a mandate to govern as a majority.” Canada has changed since the 1977 Citizenship Act. C-24 is a blueprint for improvement, including faster citizenship processing. Every member has constituents complaining about current processing times of 2-3 years. The Bill provides an opportunity to “fix it” by 2015-16. He listed the other improvements: aligning fees to cost of processing, ensuring applicants maintain strong ties to Canada, addressing Lost Canadians, strong penalties for fraud, Crown servants, among others. Canadians did not view revocation as “harsh” and this was in line with other countries (UK).

He closed by stating that “this is a major and significant step forward for Canada. Canadians elected a government with a strong mandate to bring forward legislation that strengthens Canada.”

And with that, the Bill was voted on as a whole, “carried on division” and moves on the third reading.

***

The following clauses were carried without debate: 10 (evidence of citizenship), 13 (obligation to answer truthfully), 16 (GIC security rulings), 17 (not counting time in jail for residency), 21 (delegation of authority). 22 (additional information), 23 (proof of certificates), 24 (certificates of citizenship), 25 (regulations), 26 (regulations – Minister), 27 (sunsetting), 28 (definition document of citizenship), 29 (consultant fines), 30 (limitation period), and 32 through 46 (essentially technical transition provisions).

Filed under C-24, Citizenship, Citizenship Act Tagged with , ,

Ottawa to appeal expat voting rights decision

2014/06/04 Leave a comment

Further to the Court case on ex-pat voting (Voting rights restored to Canadians living abroad long-term), the Government will appeal the decision as expected:

“Non-residents should have a direct and meaningful connection to Canada and to their ridings in order to vote in federal elections,” Pierre Poilievre, minister of state responsible for democratic reform, said in a statement.

“For over two decades, Canada’s policy has limited to five years the length of time someone can be abroad and still vote. That is fair and reasonable.”

Feds appeal decision granting long-term expatriate Canadians voting rights

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with

Les jeunes et la souveraineté: la génération «Non»

2014/06/04 Leave a comment

Pretty amazing poll regarding Quebec youth and lack of support for sovereignty. Sobering for the PQ and Bloc, and seems to confirm their fears that sovereignty is a dream of an older generation:

La firme CROP a sondé 500 personnes âgées de 18 à 24 ans pour le compte de La Presse. Le parti le plus populaire auprès de la jeune génération est le Parti libéral, à 34%. Québec solidaire et la Coalition avenir Québec arrivent ex aequo au deuxième rang, à 22% et 23%. Le PQ ferme la marche avec un maigre 16%.

De même, 69% des répondants auraient voté Non à un référendum sur la souveraineté. À 31%, le Oui «a atteint un plancher», commente Youri Rivest, de la firme CROP. «Quand la souveraineté se situe à moins de 30%, cest très faible.»

Le débat sur lavenir du Québec est «dépassé», croient 65% des jeunes. La même proportion pense que le Québec ne deviendra jamais un pays souverain. Pourtant, 44% des jeunes estiment que le projet est réaliste et 42% trouvent quil suscite l’enthousiasme.

Pas surprenant que les jeunes soient contre la souveraineté, puisquils semblent très attachés au Canada. Les deux tiers des répondants jugent en effet que le fédéralisme canadien comporte plus davantages que dinconvénients pour le Québec. La même proportion croit que les Québécois ont des valeurs communes avec les autres Canadiens. Et 68% affirment quêtre canadien «fait partie» de leur identité.

Les jeunes et la souveraineté: la génération «Non» | Katia Gagnon | Politique québécoise.

Xavier Dolan, the young QC director, also reflected this view, just prior to winning at Cannes:

“Should we win anything at all, I mean I’m from Quebec and Quebec is in Canada … Whatever my political views are or standpoints, I feel like my movie is very Québécois. But it would certainly be an international victory.”…

“For me, it’s not about a country or a province or old dilemmas or wars — that, my generation doesn’t associate with or relate with anymore.”

Don Macpherson: Xavier Dolan gets it right about young Quebecers’ politics

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with , , , ,

C-24 Citizenship Act: Clause-by-Clause Review – June 2

2014/06/03 1 Comment

Following Second Reading of Bill C-24 in the House last week, clause-by-clause review and voting started at Committee Monday. Not surprisingly, the Government was not open to any minor or major amendments, determined to have the Bill adopted as is. The opposition was united in its opposition to most of the provisions covered during the session.

No government amendments were proposed. Opposition amendments included:

  • Removal of the first generation limit to passing on citizenship and replacing it with a second generation limit;
  • Delete the “intent to reside” provision as it either is “meaningless” according to Ministerial testimony or unconstitutional according to a number of witnesses (and officials were less clear than the Minister in previous testimony on its constitutionality);
  • Revert to previous age requirements re language and knowledge testing (i.e., 18-54, rather than proposed 14-65);
  • Counting pre-Permanent Residents time towards citizenship as per current practice, particularly for international students given competition to attract them;
  • Provide credit for time working abroad for a Canadian company towards residency requirements;
  • Reduced discretion for Minister on health and compassion grounds;
  • No amendment tabled but opposition to the increased Ministerial discretion without independent or impartial hearing in cases of revocation for cases of fraud; and,
  • Remove provisions to strip dual citizens of their citizenship in case of convictions for terrorism and treason.

No amendments or debate on Clause 4 (Lost Canadians), 5 (Crown Servants), and 6 (Renunciation)

The most lively exchange took place near the end of the meeting. Stepping back from the individual provisions, both opposition parties expressed their substantive concerns regarding the cumulative effects of C-24 on access to Canadian citizenship. Moreover, the NDP sharply criticized the Government for ignoring any critical views of witnesses (“une très grande majorité opposée) and “shooting down all” amendments. The Liberals challenged the fundamental premise of the Bill that by making citizenship harder to get and easier to lose, this increased its value (“no evidence”). These “multiple barriers” would provide incentives to go elsewhere, particularly for international students.

The Government in turn reiterated its main points that C-24 dealt with the key points to citizenship. All Canadians would expect new citizens to indicate their intent to reside in Canada, and requiring elementary language competency for 14-64 is “not asking too much.” The Government wanted to ensure a “real connection” to Canada. An “extensive list” of witnesses supported these provisions.

Officials were not asked any questions during the session.

The Committee reconvenes Tuesday afternoon to continue clause-by-clause review.

Filed under Birthright Citizenship, C-24, Citizenship

Toronto man convicted on terrorism charge – Mohamed Hersi Case

2014/06/02 Leave a comment

Update on the Hersi case (see earlier Toronto man told undercover officer it was ‘God’s Will’ for him join terror-group Al-Shabab, trial hears):

A university graduate, Mr. Hersi had been working as a security guard downtown. And that was where the undercover officer went, on the pretext that he was a consultant conducting opinion surveys of security guards….

The officer testified that Mr. Hersi confided much – including that he knew a Toronto man who had previously joined al-Shabab. They also discussed an English-language al-Qaeda propaganda article that was making the rounds at the time: “How to Make a Bomb in the Kitchen of Your Mom.”

Mr. Hersi relayed that he was planning to join al-Shabab, the officer testified. During testimony, the accused denied this, saying he simply wanted to live in a Muslim country.

Searches of Mr. Hersi’s laptop revealed downloads of The U.S. Navy Seal Sniper Training Syllabus and The Anarchist Cookbook.

He now faces up to 10 years in prison.

In light of the Governments proposed measures on revocation for those convicted of terrorism in C-24 Citizenship Act revisions, this may provide an early case. He was convicted in a Canadian court and is likely a dual national (he was born in Somalia although raised and educated in Canada for most of his life).

So would the Government choose to strip him of his Canadian citizenship and send him to Somalia (where he would likely not have to serve jail time) or have him serve out his term in a Canadian jail?

Ironic situation: being convicted of intending to travel to Somalia to commit terrorism; ending up there following revocation.

Toronto man convicted on terrorism charge – The Globe and Mail.

Filed under Citizenship, Revocation Tagged with , , ,

Younger Canadians hold more negative views about religious groups – CRRF

2014/05/30 Leave a comment

Further to an earlier release of the CRRF and ACS Survey on Religion, Racism and Intergroup Relations in Canada Shows Differences in Attitudes Among Anglophones, Francophones and Other Groups, a further release pertaining to attitudes to religious diversity by age group. Remarkably consistent across religions, except for Muslims:

Table 1: Negative attitudes towards certain groups, according to age groups
 Negative Opinion

Total

18-24

25-34

35-44

45-54

55-64
 Muslims 44% 43% 45% 40% 43% 40%
 Jews 19% 24% 25% 20% 15% 15%
 Protestants 15% 24% 23% 14% 15% 8%
 Catholics 19% 25% 25% 22% 18% 13%
 Atheists/Agnostics 21% 14% 18% 21% 21% 22%
 Religious 31% 36% 33% 31% 31% 27%
 Immigrants 24% 24% 27% 24% 30% 16%
 Aboriginals 26% 26% 26% 25% 29% 22%

Younger Canadians hold more negative views about religious groups

Whereas on diversity in general, young people are more supportive than older age groups, as another relatively recent study by ACS shows:

Do you have a very positive, somewhat positive, somewhat negative or very negative opinion of Canadian Multicultural Policy
Total 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65 + French English Other
TOTAL positive 58% 74% 61% 61% 56% 54% 47% 48% 60% 67%
Very positive 15% 34% 18% 15% 10% 12% 8% 8% 14% 26%
Somewhat positive 43% 40% 43% 46% 46% 42% 39% 40% 46% 41%
TOTAL negative 35% 14% 29% 33% 35% 39% 50% 45% 32% 28%
Somewhat negative 23% 7% 19% 24% 25% 25% 33% 29% 22% 18%
Very negative 12% 8% 10% 9% 11% 14% 17% 16% 10% 11%
I prefer not answering 7% 11% 10% 6% 9% 7% 3% 7% 8% 5%

Younger Canadians Believe Multiculturalism Works; Older Canadians, Not So Sure 

I expect a further breakdown by region (urban vs rural, QC vs ROC), cross-referenced to more broad-based attitude polling, may cast more light, or it may simply reflect that younger people, in general, may be less religious.

No surprise, and consistent with other surveys, distrust of Muslims is higher than other religions (they did not ask about Sikhs which generally “rate” between Muslims and other religions). There may be a link between the categories “religious” and Muslims, given perceptions of more religious fundamentalism or conservatism.

Like all polling, one question leads to another …

Filed under Multiculturalism, Polling, Religion Tagged with ,

Alexander blasts critics of immigration bill as C-24 goes to second reading

2014/05/29 2 Comments

On the eve of Second Reading of C-24 Citizenship Act revisions, a broadside by Minister Alexander against the critics of the Bill.

Not quite in the Pierre Polievre school of how to promote your Bill, but quite remarkable given Alexander’s previous career as a diplomat where language was more nuanced, to say the least (see Konrad Yakabuski’s earlier profile Chris Alexander balances his portfolio and power).

Always unfortunate when a Minister feels more comfortable attacking those opposed to legislation as hypocrites, rather than arguing the merits of the Bill.

But the opposition also has some responsibility. While active in Committee, there is by no means the same focussed attention on C-24 as there was for Bill C-23 (elections), C-13 (cyberbullying and surveillance) and the ongoing Temporary Foreign Workers controversy. Opposition parties also make choices on how hard to push issues on both policy and political grounds. Their calculation appears to favour more pro-forma opposition, albeit based upon legitimate concerns over some aspects of the Bill, rather than a more high profile effort. Unless I have missed it, have not heard either opposition leader say much on C-24:

Immigration Minister Chris Alexander is accusing the opposition of “folly and hypocrisy” as the government prepares to shepherd its controversial citizenship bill over its next legislative hurdle.

“Both the Liberals and the NDP remain offside with Canadians who recognize the immense value of Canadian citizenship and the importance of protecting its integrity,” Alexander said in a statement.

“It is shameful that activist immigration lawyers, who never miss an opportunity to criticize our governments citizenship and immigration reforms, are attempting to drum up business by promoting the interests of convicted terrorists and serious criminals over the safety and security of Canadians.”

As to the “drumming up business” line, all of those supporting or opposing the Bill do so from their perspective, values and interests. This does not necessarily diminish the value of their comments, for or against.

And while some elements of C-24 may “reduce the business” for immigration and refugee lawyers (i.e., revocation for fraud at Ministerial discretion, rather than the courts), other may “drum up business”  (i.e., revocation for terror and treason). Somewhat ironic to say the least.

Last night’s somewhat perfunctory Parliamentary debate at Second Reading allows C-24 to proceed to a vote today.

We will see how the next stages proceed and whether the Government will consider any changes to the Bill (some C-24 supporters recommended some process changes). In any case, the Bill will make it through by the summer recess.

Alexander blasts critics of immigration bill as C-24 goes to second reading.

Filed under C-24, Citizenship, Citizenship Act Tagged with , , , ,

Citizenship bill flies under the radar, it shouldn’t | hilltimes.com

2014/05/27 Leave a comment

My take in the Hill Times on the Committee hearings on Bill C-24, changes to the Citizenship Act:

One month ago, Parliamentary hearings started on Bill C-24, the Strengthening the Value of Canadian Citizenship Act. Witnesses ranged from those who support the bill unreservedly, to those who oppose without qualification.

It was more Kabuki theatre than debate, given the government mainly probed supporting witnesses and the opposition opposing witnesses. However, many had significant nuances, particularly on due process questions, which may prove significant when the bill proceeds to more formal review.

Apart from the Canadian Jewish community, represented by CIJA, B’nai Brith and J-RAN, there is relatively little testimony from the larger ethnic community organizations. There has also been relatively little press coverage that I have seen in the ethnic media. This is somewhat surprising, given the impact that this bill will have on their communities.

Secondly, lawyers testified strongly against the bill, noting major concerns regarding Charter compliance, particularly with respect to revocation, notwithstanding Immigration Minister Chris Alexander’s assertion that the bill “is fully compliant with the requirements of our Constitution.” Additional concerns were expressed regarding the increased discretion for officials and the minister. Given the track record of the government before the courts, the minister’s confidence will likely be tested as cases emerge.

Thirdly, opinion is highly polarized between those who support the government’s approach of making citizenship “harder to get and easier to lose,” and those who believe the current approach is largely successful and believe in a more facilitative and flexible approach. Overall, more witnesses were opposed to the overall direction of the government.

This article aims to provide the general state-of-play on testimony to date.

Residency: There is no clear consensus and positions are split down the middle. However, some of those supporting the increased residency time and physical presence expressed the need for more flexibility, primarily for those with business reasons for travel. There was general opposition to removal of half-time credit for temporary residence (e.g., foreign students, temporary foreign workers, refugees and live-in caregivers) towards meeting residency requirements. The “intent to reside” provision was opposed by most witnesses, with some fearing that determination by citizenship officers of an applicant’s “intent” could be arbitrary, in addition to the broader question treating naturalized Canadians differently from born Canadians.

Knowledge and language testing: More organizations opposed increased coverage (from 18-year-olds to 54-year-old and 14-year-olds to 64-year-olds), particularly, refugee and settlement organizations. A number of witnesses also opposed the imposition of up-front language testing (introduced to streamline processing), as this effectively increased the language barrier. While some of the concerns regarding older applicants are valid, the 14-year-olds to 17-year-olds automatically will meet language requirements, as they will have been educated in a Canadian school.

Fee increases: Refugee advocates strongly opposed these increases, given that for many the cost could be prohibitive. Citizenship is particularly important for refugees given that many have had to sever connections with their country of origin.

Criminal convictions abroad: While not subject to much testimony, both those supporting and opposing expressed concern regarding the equivalence between Canadian and foreign courts, which needed greater clarity in the bill.

Revocation for fraud: All supported the principle for revocation of fraud or misrepresentation, but the vast majority opposed this being at ministerial discretion with no appeal to the Federal Court. There was support, however, for the streamlined process that removes the Cabinet role and consolidates revocation and removal proceedings.

Revocation for terrorism, high treason, or who take up arms against Canada: Not surprisingly, this formed the bulk of testimony on both sides of the issue, evenly divided. For many, such crimes break the “fundamental social contract of Canada” given that they are acts against Canadian values. For others, the fundamental issue is treating dual nationals, whether by birth or naturalization, differently from Canadian-only nationals, changing Canada’s long-standing policy since Diefenbaker.

Most of those who supported revocation noted the need to add to the existing test, “was the offence equivalent to Canadian law,” a second test, “was the judicial process also equivalent.”

Others opposed the reverse burden of proof on citizens to demonstrate that they did not have dual citizenship. It is unclear whether this includes only the right to another citizenship (e.g., Israel’s Law of Return which has parallels in a number of countries), or actually formally having exercised that right. Retroactive revocation was also criticized (the Omar Khadr provision?).

Less discussed issues included the reduced role for citizenship judges, the requirement to provide tax returns, providing preference to applicants having served in the Canadian Forces (very small numbers), Crown servant first generation exception, and the regulation of citizenship consultants.

A number of witnesses supported the expansion of “lost Canadians” to those born before 1947 (date of the first Canadian Citizenship Act) as well as their first generation born abroad. However, the government suppressed the testimony of long-standing activists Melynda Jarratt and Don Chapman who remain concerned that the bill only fixed war brides and their children, not posthumously recognizing Canadian citizenship of those who died before 1947, including Canadian war dead.

One of my favourite comments, from the Canadian Bar Association, is that the bill should be completely redrafted, with less cross-referencing, in plain language.

After the initial flurry of interest and commentary, the hearings are largely happening under the radar. Mainstream media are not covering it and ethnic communities and media are largely absent. Neither opposition party appears, at this stage, to be making this a major issue, in sharp contrast with C-23, the Fair Elections Act, and controversy over Temporary Foreign Workers. Alexander is lucky indeed.

There are some obvious areas where the government could respond to some of the testimony without changing the fundamentals. There seems no sound policy or political rationale not to count pre-permanent residency time towards citizenship. The intent to reside provision needs further clarification on how citizenship officers will decide whether it is genuine or not. It seems pointless to extend language assessment to 14-year-olds to 17-year-olds given that they have been in Canadian schools for six years before applying. There should be some flexibility for fees for low-income refugees. Greater clarity on Canadian equivalency on foreign criminality convictions will improve fairness. Revocation for terrorism and treason should similarly also test for equivalence to Canadian judicial processes, and have greater clearer criteria and language (e.g., “act” rather than “offence”).

None of this will address the philosophical differences between the government and its supporters, and those of its critics. The overall tightening of citizenship will likely reduce the number of permanent residents taking up citizenship. Increased residency and related requirements may make Canada less attractive to the “best and brightest,” and most mobile immigrants Canada wishes to attract. Revocation for terror and treason changes long-standing policy of treating all Canadians equally, whether born in Canada or naturalized.

As Bill C-24 moves to more formal parliamentary debate, we shall see if the political dynamics change and Canadians start pay more attention to this tougher approach to Canadian citizenship, and the likely effects over time, on Canada.

Immigration bill flies under the radar, it shouldn’t | hilltimes.com.

Filed under C-24, Citizenship, Citizenship Act Tagged with ,

Canada’s birthright citizenship policy makes us a nation of suckers – Jan Wong

2014/05/24 Leave a comment

Jan Wong in Toronto Life does some serious research beyond the purely anecdotal. Much better than the government-led consultations in 2012, which was largely anecdotal with no hard numbers (sigh … see ‘Birth tourists’ believed to be using Canada’s citizenship laws as back door into the West | National Post).

Her numbers for the main Toronto birthing hospitals for non-medicare births (which also includes immigrants within the 3-month waiting period before coverage).

Number over 5 Years

Yearly Average

Sunnybrook

121

24

North York General

569

114

St. Michael’s

311

62

Mount Sinai

318

64

Total

1319

264

Compare this with the total number of live births in Ontario: 142,462 in 2012/13 and in Toronto itself, 30,800 in 2009 (latest data I could find from the City of Toronto website).

In other words, the 4 main birthing centres in Toronto together had less than 300 births per year, or just under 1 percent of all live births. What percentage of these are from birth tourism compared to pre-medicare eligibility cases is unclear. But a fix for a less than 1 percent problem is likely to be costly (how many other government programs can boast such a low fraud or error rate?).

So much of her arguments are more blather and outrage than dispassionate, with no consideration of the additional administrative cost and burden of addressing a relatively small problem. It is no accident that C-24 revisions to the Citizenship Act did not contain any provisions regarding jus soli (birthright citizenship). Too complex and costly.

Do we really have to make a more complicated and lengthy process of giving birth and registering a child for the other 99 percent? And does she really believe that any children of birth tourists who return to Canada will not contribute to the Canadian economy?

What is Canadian citizenship worth in cold hard cash? Like a birth tourist trying to decide whether to hand over $36,200, I crunched the numbers. Canadian citizenship, I calculated, is worth about $840,000 in tangible benefits, excluding welfare payments should you end up on the dole. Assuming a current average life expectancy of 81 years, free health care alone is worth at least $485,000 ($5,988 annually, but much more if you require major surgery or a long hospital stay), according to 2013 health data from the Canadian Institute for Health Information. Free public education is worth $174,750, according to international tuition rates charged by the Toronto District School Board. As for university tuition, a Canadian at the University of Toronto would save $58,512 over four years, because international students pay substantially more. Finally, an average old-age pension (from age 65 to 81) totals $121,624.

And those are just the measurable assets. What about clean air and water, an untainted food supply, an absence of famine and civil war, and a charter of rights and freedoms? Another incalculable advantage comes in adulthood during the job hunt. By law, many institutions can’t even consider hiring a foreigner unless there’s not a single qualified ­Canadian or landed immigrant applying for the job.

It’s difficult not to feel like a nation of suckers. Birth tourism is a form of immigration fraud that gives pregnant women and their families a way to jump the queue, while wasting our tax dollars and raising serious security concerns—who knows what happens to some of those passports down the line? Immigration Canada concedes it has no idea of the magnitude of the problem, because Ottawa doesn’t record whether a woman is pregnant when entering Canada. When this kind of immigration fraud is detected (a rarity), the potential consequence is, of course, deportation of the parent, but the child would still remain a Canadian citizen.

Canada’s birthright citizenship policy makes us a nation of suckers torontolife.com.

Filed under Birthright Citizenship, C-24, Citizenship, Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

Citizenship Act will create two classes of Canadians – Macklin, Adams and Omidvar

2014/05/23 1 Comment

Audrey Macklin, Michael Adams and Ratna Omidvar on the proposed changes to the Citizenship Act:

Some Canadians commit serious crimes. The foreign-born are no more likely than the Canadian-born to do so (some evidence suggests they are less likely to) but small numbers in each group do break the law. Nor are dual citizens more likely than mono-citizens to commit crimes. Today, citizens (including foreign-born and dual citizens) are equal before the law and are treated the same way as other Canadians if they are accused of a crime. They undergo due process and, if convicted, are punished according to the provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada. If their crimes are committed abroad, the procedures are different but their treatment by the Canadian government is identical.

Adding citizenship revocation as an extra prospective punishment for dual citizens (many of whom, but not all, are foreign-born) is tantamount to creating a second class of citizenship. This is a change that cuts to the core of what it means to be Canadian – and in order to solve what problem?

Canadian citizenship is a solution, not a problem. Canada has traditionally had exceptionally high naturalization rates; nearly nine in 10 immigrants (89 per cent) have become Canadian citizens. This pattern has been praised as a strength of our immigration program: a sign that immigrants are invested in Canada and Canada is invested in the successful integration of its immigrants.

When immigrants become citizens they can vote, stand for office (and win: in 2011, 44 of our sitting MPs were born outside the country), and generally become fully contributing, fully participating members of Canadian society. To turn citizenship from a tool of integration into a reward for good behaviour – to be revoked at the discretion of one minister on grounds of bad behavior and without due process – is to undermine the meaning and value of citizenship for all Canadians.

Citizenship Act will create two classes of Canadians – The Globe and Mail.

Filed under C-24, Citizenship, Citizenship Act Tagged with , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →