Changing citizenship rule could hurt Canada’s efforts to woo foreign students: observers

2014/02/24 Leave a comment

Ironic, as the Government has been innovative in attracting foreign students through new categories like the Canadian Experience Class, that no longer counting time as a non-permanent resident student is part of the proposed Citizenship Act revisions. Unclear whether this will have much direct impact on recruitment efforts for international students but that is the fear:

The change is raising some eyebrows as it creates a potential hurdle for those who typically make well-integrated, sought-after immigrants.

“Increasingly international students are seen as a fabulous talent pool for Canada, they’re golden immigrants,” said Jennifer Humphries, a vice-president at the Canadian Bureau for International Education.

“They can be huge contributors to the Canadian society, Canadian economy. If we create roadblocks to them, what will happen could mean that they could get their education in Canada and end up going to work in the U.S.”

Changing citizenship rule could hurt Canada’s efforts to woo foreign students: observers – Canada, Need to know, News & Politics – Macleans.ca.

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

Citizenship: Finding the Right Balance – New Canadian Media

2014/02/22 Leave a comment

My overall assessment of the proposed changes to the Citizenship Act, with the conclusion being:

The challenge for all governments is how to balance citizenship as a “place,” assuming citizens remain in their country of immigration, and citizenship as a “status,” a more instrumental view of citizenship as a means to secure employment and other rights.

It is hard for any government to craft options that address the diverse needs of people applying for citizenship. Immigrants who choose Canada for economic reasons may have a more instrumental view of citizenship. Providing them with greater flexibility, and encouraging them to choose Canada, without weakening the meaning of citizenship, or providing additional opportunities for citizens of convenience, will always be a challenge. With the longer residency requirements and “intent to reside” provision, Mr. Alexander may be reducing the attractiveness to the more highly skilled and entrepreneurial immigrants.

Mr. Alexander has come down firmly on the side of citizenship as “place.” The emphasis on integrity and streamlined business processes is understandable, with the possible exception of differential treatment of Canadian citizens and dual nationals in revocation. His inattention to fairness issues and citizenship promotion is regrettable. However, taken together, Mr. Alexander’s proposed changes remain largely within the Canadian context of encouraging immigrants to become citizens, and remaining competitive with other countries.

Citizenship: Finding the Right Balance – New Canadian Media – NCM.

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

Selling the Citizenship Act Revisions

2014/02/22 Leave a comment

Less print reporting than I would have expected (or at least what came up on my regular media search) on the Minister’s outreach this past week in Winnipeg, Vancouver and Halifax, selling the proposed changes to the Citizenship Act.

From Vancouver with the Chinese Canadian community:

“The government is trying to control too much,” said Vancouver-based Chinese Canadian news commentator Victor Ho, who also edits the Sing Tao Daily. “To make everyone from age 14 to 64 learn English up to a mandatory level, I think the government is trying to interfere too strongly. If a teenager is living here, then he (or she) is already learning the language in schools, and will pick it up. And as for seniors, you can encourage them, but that should really be more of the family’s decision.”

Another hot topic was the end of the immigrant investor program, which offered visas to people with a net worth of at least $1.6 million who were willing to lend $800,000 to the Canadian government for investment across Canada for a term of five years. The change, which would leave 45,000 Chinese millionaires in limbo, was proposed in the new 2014 budget. The decision has angered some in the Chinese Canadian business community, with some people speaking out at a press conference in Chinatown.

Immigration Minister Chris Alexander reveals contradictions in citizenship law | Vancouver Observer.

From the Halifax session, focussing on revocation and Lost Canadians:

The government had earlier signaled its intention to strip Canadians of their citizenship if they are involved in terrorist activities abroad, leading critics to say such a provision leaves Canadians vulnerable to false accusations from undemocratic regimes. But Mr. Alexander, speaking at a news conference in Halifax, said the new Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act makes it clear that terrorism convictions would have to be from Canadian courts and the provisions would only apply to people who have dual citizenship. He added that the measure is intended “to be a deterrent to dual nationals who might think of going to fight for extremist groups” in Syria or elsewhere.

High bar to strip citizenship: Minister

Some earlier commentary in the Indo-Canadian Voice, largely description of the proposed changes to citizenship by William MacIntosh, an immigration lawyer:

As long as Canada offers health care and other social benefits, there is a legitimate political question about the tax contribution of the several million Canadians living abroad to pay for those services should they return. The government may say the proposed changes help address the problem, but the changes are window dressing. The real change would come with amendments to tax laws, which would be much harder to sell politically.

Indo-Canadian Voice | Tougher citizenship laws miss mark on expatriate issues.

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

Ottawa’s new citizenship rules are perverse: Commentary from Right and Left

2014/02/20 2 Comments

The counter-argument to making citizenship more restrictive given the realities of globalization, by Dan Devoretz of Simon Fraser and Yuen Pau Woo of the Asia Pacific Foundation. I think their fears of the changes are over exaggerated, as Canada will still  largely remain competitive with other immigrant attracting countries.

However, the emphasis on citizenship meaningfulness and attachment needs to be balanced by the realities below. The problem for governments is that we have no realistic or practical way to measure attachment to Canada except by the proxy of physical presence:

The new act rightly identifies an important objective of citizenship policy as the need to create attachment to Canada. This policy, however, should not be defined in the narrow sense of physical presence within our borders. The reality of a globalized workforce — especially for highly skilled workers — is that they have the option to work in many different jurisdictions and likely will spend parts of their professional lives outside of their native or adopted countries. Exhibit A: the Governor of the Bank of England.

In a highly competitive market for global talent, the challenge should be defined not as how to stop immigrants from leaving, but rather as how to encourage our citizens abroad to stay attached to Canada.

The implicit message of the new act — which requires immigrants to be resident in Canada four years out of six in order to become a citizen — is that Canadians who spend more than one-third of their lives outside the country are lesser citizens. Indeed, the current rules deny Canadians the right to vote if they have lived abroad for more than five years. That would include Mark Carney by the time he completes his term at the Bank of England.

Ottawa’s new citizenship rules are perverse | Toronto Star.

A more predictable critique from the left by Patti Tamara Lenard of UofO and the Broadbent Institute:

The justifications being offered by Alexander in defense of these changes – to ensure loyalty to Canada, to protect the integrity of the system, to support the value of Canadian citizenship – are thin. There is no evidence that longer wait times increase loyalty to a state – just look at so many European states, where the average wait times for citizenship extend much longer than they do in Canada. Immigrants to European states exhibit no more, and often less, loyalty to their receiving state. The problems to which this Act is responding appear to be mere phantoms, even by Alexander’s own admission. He acknowledges that Canadians value their citizenship highly – “Canadian citizenship is uniquely valuable in the world”, he observes, implying that immigrants may somehow fail to understand this. Yet, among those Canadians who value Canadian citizenship are presumably the millions of immigrants who acquired citizenship through an expedited process.

Questionable motives drive changes to Citizenship Act

 

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

Tories speed up plan to give minister power to strip citizenship – The Globe and Mail

2014/02/19 2 Comments

More debate on the proposed revocation measures, particularly with respect to revocation for fraud and Ministerial decision-making. The previous revocation process was largely unworkable:

Mr. Alexander told CTV this week the existing revocation process is “one of the most time-consuming, document-intensive bureaucratic processes I’ve ever seen.” His spokeswoman, Codie Taylor, said the unilateral system is meant to “reduce duplication and bureaucracy. We are making the citizenship system more efficient, which will result in decreased backlogs and improved processing times.”

Canada can’t leave a person stateless under international treaty law, so the rules apply only to dual citizens. The law also puts the onus on those accused to prove they’d be left stateless – not on government to prove they wouldn’t. Mr. Alexander also now has the sole right to grant “discretionary” citizenship, though the government says it will not make public the list of those who get it.

The changes in Bill C-24 omit Sections 10 and 18 of the existing Citizenship Act, which dealt with revocation and a subject’s right to appeal to court. While court will no longer be an option in some cases, Winnipeg immigration lawyer David Matas noted other cases actually will be sent to a higher court than before. “This new legislation, as far as I can see, is an improvement,” he said.

Tories speed up plan to give minister power to strip citizenship – The Globe and Mail.

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

EU Observatory on Democracy (EUDO) Citizenship Report

2014/02/19 Leave a comment

The latest EU Observatory on Democracy (EUDO) reports on citizenship and immigrant integration. Wealth of information for the cognoscenti, and some good comparative tables in the exec summary:

EUDO CITIZENSHIP.

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with ,

Chris Alexander balances his portfolio and power

2014/02/18 2 Comments

Konrad Yakabuski’s favourable profile of CIC Minister Chris Alexander:

Canada remains an outlier in that it has not seen a rise in anti-immigration politics. Making sure it stays that way requires striking the right balance to retain public confidence in our citizenship laws. C-24 largely gets this balance right, but Mr. Alexander has more work to do to make the case for its revocation provisions.

If he succeeds with the immigration file, as Mr. Kenney did, watch out. For Conservatives unenthusiastic about future leadership prospects Peter MacKay, John Baird or Mr. Kenney, the polyglot internationalist who recently aced his grilling on Quebec’s Tout le monde en parle – he took being compared to a Ken doll as a compliment – might just be the answer to their prayers. There is little doubt he has the brains.

“Chris understands the exercise of power,” says former deputy foreign-affairs minister Peter Harder. “He’s got tremendous gifts, the full potential of which have not been realized.”

Chris Alexander balances his portfolio and power – The Globe and Mail.

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

British Home Secretary Waited Until Terror Suspect Was Abroad Before Stripping Citizenship | Global Research

2014/02/17 Leave a comment

Interesting debate in the UK over revocation of suspected terrorists. UK has gone further than proposed changes to revocation in the revisions to Canada’s Citizenship Act, namely;

  • Ministerial discretion rather than through the courts; and,
  • Not respecting the international statelessness convention.

MPs voiced concern on Tuesday that prospective changes to the Immigration Bill allowing the Home Secretary to make people stateless would result in ‘two classes of British citizens.’

Theresa May is seeking the power to strip terror suspects of their UK nationality even if it renders them stateless – currently she can only use the law against dual-nationals, who won’t be left stateless by the loss of their British nationality. The changes in legislation will only apply to foreign-born or naturalised British citizens.

Diane Abbott, Labour MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington, said: ‘We will have two classes of British citizens. That is a dangerous road to go down.’

Abbott added: ‘The fear will be that although this has started with suspected terrorists, where will it end, once the state decides that British citizenship is not indivisible?’

Security minister James Brokenshire replied: ‘We do not accept that there is, or will be, a two-tier citizenship system.’

But a recent Home Office briefing showing how the Immigration Bill amendment seeks to comply with EU law, said it was ‘satisfied that there is an objective and reasonable justification for treating naturalised citizens differently from others.’

British Home Secretary Waited Until Terror Suspect Was Abroad Before Stripping Citizenship | Global Research.

The US approach is more draconian: revocation through targeted drone strikes.

With A Citizen In The Crosshairs, Where’s The Line Drawn For Drones?

Canadian commentary on the risks of mistakes and lack of due process of the proposed revocation provisions of the Citizenship Act revisions by Azeezah Kanji in the National Post:

Moreover, neither [former Minister of Citizenship and Immigration] Mr. Kenney nor the proposed legislation specifies that revocation of citizenship is permitted only for acts of terrorism executed against Canada or Canadians. Vile as it may be, an act of terrorism committed on non-Canadian soil, against non-Canadian nationals or interests, should not be considered a “fundamental breach of mutual loyalty” against Canada.

The inherently political nature of terrorism means that terrorism accusations, prosecutions and convictions are also deeply politicized, and subject to radical re-evaluation in hindsight. Yesterday’s terrorists may be today’s honorary Canadian citizens — as the case of Nelson Mandela demonstrates.

Banishing those convicted as terrorists does not “strengthen” Canadian citizenship; it only leaves Canadians more vulnerable to the political prejudices of the day.

Sometimes I think that we should have another version of Godwin’s law that prohibits always using Nelson Mandela as an example of “one man’s freedom fighter is another one’s terrorist,” as many of the extremists are a particularly nasty lot with little if anything in common with Mandela’s early days (he targeted infrastructure, not people).

This is not to say that we should not be extremely cautious and examine carefully the implications of such a fundamental change to the long-standing Canadian policy of considering Canadians as equal, whether born-here or elsewhere.

Stripping convicted terrorists of their citizenship leaves all Canadians vulnerable

Filed under Citizenship, Revocation Tagged with ,

In defence of Ottawa’s citizenship shift: Chris Alexander | Toronto Star

2014/02/13 Leave a comment

Op-ed by Minister Alexander to some of the over-the-top commentary by The Star on the proposed changes to the Citizenship Act. A number of his points are valid, particularly regarding the failure to recognize that there was abuse in the citizenship (and other) programs (reminds me of the Downton Abbey scene in which the Dowager Countess asks Isabelle whether Isabelle never doubts the honesty of people).

However, the change in a basic principle in Canadian citizenship policy for two generations, equal treatment for Canadian-born and naturalized Canadians, should not be glossed over. This change, combined with the “intent to reside” provision, needs to be reviewed closely on both substantive and process grounds. While the easy cases (e.g., the 130 Canadians fighting with extremist groups cited by the Minister) are of legitimate concern, the risk is that this substantive change to traditional policy (“a Canadian is a Canadian”) may cast a broader net with unforeseen consequences.

Minister Alexander’s overall messaging:

The new measures in Bill C-24, the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, are a deterrent to those who might seek to abuse our generosity, circumvent our laws or attack us in cold blood.

We are all proud of our Canadian citizenship. Let’s make it stronger than ever by ensuring new Canadians have a real connection to this country, by reducing processing times, by honouring those who serve, by eliminating fraud and abuse and by deterring disloyalty.

In defence of Ottawa’s citizenship shift: Chris Alexander | Toronto Star.

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

The Four Pillars of French Nationality

2014/02/13 Leave a comment

Good overview on French nationality by Victoria Ferauge summarizing a talk by Patrick Weil, one of the leading academics on citizenship and related issues. Well worth reading, including for my Quebec readers, on laicité:

Weil made the very good point that the idea of the separation of Church and state has been wrongly extended from its original purpose – the strict neutrality of the state in matters of religion.  What we can see today is another conception of it which views the state’s role as an accelerator of the decline of religious belief (a pre-requisite, some argue, to creating a truly “modern” society),  To that end there is an attempt to eject religious expression from public life. (See José Casanova for a discussion about these very different views of secularization.)

He contends, and I agree wholeheartedly, that this was never the intention behind la laïcité.  The state is not there to hobble religious expression public or private – on the contrary the state is prevented from favoring any religion over another and is not permitted to do anything to restrict an individual’s freedom of conscience and the expression of his or her beliefs.  Here I would say that this attempt on the part of some in the Hexagon to do that is just as much a problem for me as a Roman Catholic as it is for the members of minority religions here.

The Franco-American Flophouse: The Four Pillars of French Nationality.

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →