SCOTUS ruling on citizenship proof for new voters has an outsized impact for Native voters

Interesting wrinkle:

With the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that now requires potential voters to provide proof of citizenship with their state-created voter registration forms, Indigenous voting rights advocates want Indigenous people to know that they can still register to vote as tribal citizens.

Patty Ferguson-Bohnee said that Indigenous people living in Arizona who are enrolled in a federally recognized tribe can use their tribal identification numbers to prove their citizenship.

“As long as a tribal member is an enrolled member of their tribe, they can use that tribal ID number to register on the state form, and that will prove citizenship for purposes of voter registration,” she said, adding that it’s because all Indigenous peoples were declared citizens of the United States in 1924.

Ferguson-Bohnee is the Director of the Indian Legal Clinic and a Clinical Professor of Law at the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law. She also coordinates the Arizona Native Vote Election Protect Project, which focuses on protecting the right to vote for Indigenous voters in Arizona.

“If you prove you’re a Native American through using your enrollment number, your citizenship is verified,” she said because there is a space for Indigenous peoples to include that specific information on the state voter registration form.

“The people who are registering voters need to know that we can’t leave that blank because if you do not provide that on your state form, they will reject it,” Ferguson-Bohnee added.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Aug. 22 that Arizona can enforce part of a voter registration law being challenged in federal court, allowing the state to bar legal voters from registering weeks before the election.

Ferguson-Bohnee said the law will cause some confusion among organizations and people out in the community trying to register voters, and it may discourage voters from registering.

“The goal of the law was to create barriers to the ballot box,” she said. “And even to prevent eligible voters from registering to vote.”

Lower courts initially blocked the Arizona law in 2022, but in a 5-4 order, the Supreme Court reinstated a portion of the law that allows the state to stop accepting state-created voter registration forms from Arizona residents unless they provide proof of citizenship.

The ruling means that potential voters who register to vote in Arizona using the state-created voter registration forms will need documentation proving citizenship for the registration to be valid. If no proof is provided, the state will reject the form — without informing them.

Ferguson Bohnee said there is no option to correct the form once it gets rejected, so she suggests that people register with the federal forms first. Then, when they have all the documentation readily available, their registration can be promoted to full-ballot voters.

“It’s very discouraging because it’s making a change right in the midst of the election process when people are registering people to vote,” Ferguson-Bohnee said. “This decision by the court is revising the playing field for election law.”

Not all Indigenous peoples may have their enrollment numbers available, but that shouldn’t discourage them from trying to register to vote. Ferguson-Bohnee said that is when they should register using the federal voter registration form.

She said that registering with a federal form only requires people to affirm their citizenship, not provide document proof, so people will be registered to vote in federal elections, including the presidential and senate races.

However, Ferguson-Bohnee said that if the voter can provide documentary proof of citizenship later, their status will be moved to a full ballot voter, which includes state elections — but that has to be done the Thursday before Election Day.

The court ruling has left some voting organizations baffled about their best course of action because it disrupts the plan of action that has been in motion within Indigenous communities for months.

Arizona Native Vote Executive Director Jaynie Parrish said it has left her team in limbo.

“We’re waiting to hear more directions on what our team needs to do,” Parrish said, adding they haven’t been provided a clear path forward on how this impacts Indigenous voters in Arizona.

Source: SCOTUS ruling on citizenship proof for new voters has an outsized impact for Native voters

USA: Ending Birthright Citizenship Is Harder Than It Sounds

Good analysis:

….All of this could affect birth tourism. In his last administration, Trump issued an executive order outlawing B1/B2 tourist visas for birth tourism, where an alien comes to the U.S. specifically to give birth here and “create” an American citizen, an “anchor baby,” who will file for legal status for his parents at age 21. Prior to Trump’s EO, traveling to the U.S. to give birth was fundamentally legal, although there are scattered cases of domestic authorities arresting operators of birth tourism agencies. Women abroad were often honest about their intentions when applying for visas and even showed contracts with doctors and hospitals to prove they would not become public charges.

As it stands, visitors will be denied temporary visas if it is found the “primary purpose” of their travel is to obtain citizenship for a child by giving birth in the United States. The rule does not apply to the 39 countries in the Visa Waiver Program, and the State Department in implementing the EO forbids its visa officers from even asking in most cases if an applicant is pregnant, making the order hard to enforce.

“This is the first recognition that it’s not OK to use a visitor visa for the purposes of ‘birth tourism,’ so it has a symbolic strength in that respect, at the same time it’s not a very effective way at going after the ‘birth tourism’ industry,” said an analyst at the Migration Policy Institute. While the federal government does not specifically track birth tourism, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention annually publishes the number of known births in the U.S. to foreign women who reside overseas—around 10,000 such births every year for the past few years.

Source: Ending Birthright Citizenship Is Harder Than It Sounds

McQueen: Liberals go hog wild on immigration, hoping to secure victory in 2029 and beyond

Once a partisan, always a partisan, in terms of how one looks at the issues, it would appear.

While certainly political considerations played a role, the increase in the number of permanent residents reflected the misguided belief that Canada needed a larger population to address an aging population and labour shortages. The increase in temporary workers responded, excessively, to business interests, and students to provincial governments and their education institutions.

And surprising, given that voting applies only to citizens, that McQueen doesn’t mention citizenship numbers. And assuming that all new Canadians favour the government of the day, reflects an earlier period and neglects the diversity among new Canadian voters.

…Consider that in 2021, Trudeau’s 5.6 million votes weren’t sufficient to secure another majority. His administration has brought in about 3.2 million new immigrants, and consciously allowed the number of temporary residents to swell to 2.8 million — a large chunk of whom have come post the 2021 election. More than any equivalent period in our history

One has to wonder if Trudeau has weaponized our Immigration system in an effort to build a new base of more than six million grateful future Liberal voters. What might look like “incompetence” may actually be the Liberal 2029 election strategy at work.

Source: Liberals go hog wild on immigration, hoping to secure victory in 2029 and beyond

Government could revoke citizenship of terror suspect, immigration minister says

Always good to start with a timeline to determine what actions are possible. If Eldidi did misrepresent himself when apply for citizenship, then revocation is possible:

…Mr. Miller, speaking to reporters in Nova Scotia Wednesday, described himself a “disgusted as any Canadian” about the case.

He said he has asked his deputy minister to probe the timeline of Mr. Eldidi’s immigration to Canada including when they obtained permanent residency and citizenship. “Who knew what, when and how?,” Mr. Miller said.

“I hope to be able to provide answers in relatively in a relatively short timeline about what happened.”

He said Canadians “deserve answers” on the file.

“I’m also going to take the next step, which is to start the preliminary work, with the evidence at hand, to look at whether the individual in question’s citizenship should be revoked,” Mr. Miller said….

Source: Government could revoke citizenship of terror suspect, immigration minister says

Colby Cosh: Is a Canadian a Canadian if he first tortured prisoners for ISIS?

Overly simplistic characterization. One of the problems with the previous government’s legislation on post-citizenship revocation was that it allowed for “offloading” of responsibilities to other countries. The best example to date has been the UK government’s revocation of Jack Letts (“Jihadi Jack”), who was born and raised in the UK with minimal to no time in Canada.

However, as his mother is Canadian, his parents are understandably pressing Canada to take on his case. But correctly speaking, his radicalization occurred in the UK and the UK should not have “offloaded” responsibility to Canada. The Canadian government, to its credit, has not responded substantively to the various persons lobbying on his behalf.

Revocation for misrepresentation at the application stage is fully appropriate, including judicial review rather than leaving it only to the Minister. But post-citizenship, countries should assume their responsibilities which the UK has shamefully not done:

…The new government preserved the state’s pre-2015 right to cancel citizenship for “false representation or fraud” in an application, but it added a proviso for appeal by right to the Federal Court. This means that today’s immigration minister initiates the process for revocation, if he can find evidence of falsehood, but that he is no longer the ultimate decision-maker.

Miller knows all this, whether or not he is hoping you remember it. Nobody’s real concern about the latest accused Toronto terrorists is that the elder of them may have filled out a citizenship application form incorrectly, which is itself a purely speculative possibility. The minister is using the shreds of revocation powers left by (and to) his own government to give the general impression that a terrorist might lose citizenship only for terrorism. But this is a possibility that our prime minister explicitly rejected, and whose rejection he campaigned successfully on. A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian, even if he fought for ISIS not long before becoming a Canadian. Right?

Source: Colby Cosh: Is a Canadian a Canadian if he first tortured prisoners for ISIS?

Immigrants Are Becoming U.S. Citizens at Fastest Clips in Years

Not surprising, post Trump administration and prior to the 2024 elections. 5 month average processing time is impressive. While I don’t have the average number of months for Canadian citizenship, 71 percent of all applications in 2023 were processed in one year (below the target of 80 percent):

The federal government is processing citizenship requests at the fastest clip in a decade, moving rapidly through a backlog that built up during the Trump administration and the coronavirus pandemic.

At ceremonies in courthouses, convention centers and sports arenas across the country, thousands of immigrants are becoming new Americans every week — and becoming eligible to vote in time for the presidential election this fall.

It’s unclear how many of the new voters live in battleground states, but a number of the states where Kamala Harris or Donald Trump must win have large and growing numbers of voting-age naturalized citizens, including Georgia, Arizona, Nevada and Pennsylvania.

In Savannah, Ga., people from 19 countries streamed into a federal courthouse recently to take the oath of allegiance.

“My case was done in less than six months,” said Gladis Brown, who is married to an American and emigrated from Honduras in 2018.

Generally, lawful permanent residents, known as green-card holders, are eligible to become naturalized citizens if they have had that status for at least five years, or have been married to a U.S. citizen for at least three years.

Green-card holders have many of the same rights as citizens. But voting in federal elections is a right accorded only to citizens. And that can be a powerful motivation to pursue citizenship, especially when big national elections are on the horizon.

“I’m so glad that the process moved quickly,” said Ms. Brown, who was one of the 31 immigrants being sworn in. “People like me want to vote in the election.”

After the ceremony, Ms. Brown celebrated with cake and punch from a local women’s volunteer group — and by completing a voter-registration form provided by a representative of the League of Women Voters.

Naturalization applications typically spike upward in the approach to an election.

“The surge in naturalization efficiency isn’t just about clearing backlogs; it’s potentially reshaping the electorate, merely months before a pivotal election,” said Xiao Wang, chief executive of Boundless, a company that uses government data to analyze immigration trends and that offers services to immigrants who seek professional help in navigating the application process.

“Every citizenship application could be a vote that decides Senate seats or even the presidency,” Mr. Wang said.

At under five months, application processing speed is now on a par with 2013 and 2014. About 3.3 million immigrants have become citizens during President Biden’s time in office, with less than two months to go before the close of the 2024 fiscal year.

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services took 4.9 months, on average, to process naturalization applications in the first nine months of the current fiscal year, compared with 11.5 months in fiscal 2021.

After taking office in 2021, Mr. Biden issued an executive order that sought to dial back his predecessor’s hard-line immigration agenda and “restore faith” in the legal immigration system. Among other steps, the order called for action to “substantially reduce current naturalization processing times” with the goal of strengthening integration of new Americans.

Unlike many federal agencies, the citizenship agency is funded mainly by fees paid by applicants, rather than by congressional appropriations, giving the administration latitude to define its priorities and the allocation of resources.

The Biden administration began deploying new technology and additional staff in 2022 to reduce the pending caseload of citizenship applications, which had ballooned because of heightened scrutiny by the Trump administration and protracted pandemic-related delays in conducting the swearing-in ceremonies.

The Biden administration also shortened the naturalization application to 14 pages from 20. It raised the application fee in April to $710 from $640, but made it easier for low-income people to qualify for a discount.

While there has long been partisan disagreement over how to tackle illegal immigration and overhaul the nation’s immigration laws, naturalizing lawful residents had broad bipartisan support. As president, George W. Bush signed an executive order in 2002 expediting naturalization for noncitizens serving in the military. Since he left office, he has hosted oath ceremonies at his institute in Dallas.

But citizenship has become more politicized in recent years.

Intent on curbing legal immigration, the Trump administration conducted lengthier reviews of naturalization applications. The processing time roughly doubled to about 10 months during Mr. Trump’s tenure.

The bottleneck prevented some 300,000 prospective citizens from naturalizing in time to vote in the 2020 election, according to estimates by Boundless.

It is a crime for noncitizens, including legal permanent residents, to attempt to vote in federal elections. Some Republicans, including former President Trump and Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, have spread unfounded narratives about undocumented immigrants being encouraged to vote by Democrats….

Source: Immigrants Are Becoming U.S. Citizens at Fastest Clips in Years

Gov’t Shelves Click-Box Oath

While I will never know what role the petition I launched against the self-administered citizenship oath played, nice to see that Minister Miller has shelved this idiotic proposal. Article behind paywall so if anyone has access please share:

Immigration Minister Marc Miller’s department has shelved a proposal for click-box citizenship following a public outcry. The department in a briefing note said it accepted Canadians attached profound meaning to publicly swearing allegiance to Canada in person, a legal requirement for new citizens since 1947: “I do not agree with this interpretation where the oath of citizenship is only a formality.”

Source: Gov’t Shelves Click-Box Oath

Zelenskyy submits draft law on multiple citizenship to parliament

Of note:

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has submitted a draft law on multiple citizenship to the Verkhovna Rada (the Ukrainian parliament).

Details: The explanatory note states that the adoption of this law will help ensure conditions for the return of citizens who were forced to leave Ukraine due to the full-scale war and their retention of Ukrainian citizenship.

In addition, it will expand opportunities for certain categories of foreigners and stateless persons to acquire Ukrainian citizenship.

Zelenskyy proposes that multiple citizenship (nationality) should be allowed in the following cases:

  • simultaneous acquisition of Ukrainian citizenship and citizenship of another state by a child at birth;
  • acquisition by a child who is a Ukrainian citizen of the citizenship of their foreign adoptive parents;
  • automatic acquisition of another citizenship by a Ukrainian citizen as a result of marriage to a foreigner;
  • automatic acquisition by a Ukrainian citizen who has reached the age of 18 of another citizenship, as a result of the application of the legislation on citizenship of a foreign state, if such a Ukrainian citizen has not received a document confirming the citizenship of another state;
  • acquisition of Ukrainian citizenship under a simplified procedure by citizens of other states who are included in the list of those who can obtain Ukrainian citizenship under a simplified procedure;
  • acquisition by a Ukrainian citizen of citizenship of states from the list of states whose citizens acquire Ukrainian citizenship under a simplified procedure.

Moreover, multiple citizenship will not be allowed for people who have citizenship of Russia (i.e. a country recognised as an aggressor/occupying state by the Verkhovna Rada) or a state that does not recognise the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine. 

The draft law also aims to simplify the procedure for acquiring Ukrainian citizenship and improve the regulation of the legal status of foreigners and stateless persons who are or were on active military service under contract in the Armed Forces of Ukraine, the State Special Transport Service, the National Guard of Ukraine, or are married to such persons, or are their children.

This document has several functions, here are the most important ones: 

  • it clarifies the conditions for acquiring Ukrainian citizenship by birth, by territorial origin, and the conditions for admission to citizenship;
  • it revises the grounds for the loss of Ukrainian citizenship;
  • it regulates the possibility of submitting an expired passport by foreigners and stateless persons who served in the military to obtain a temporary residence permit; and
  • it regulates the legal status of foreigners and stateless persons who, during martial law, provide or have provided fire support, tactical, medical, radio engineering, bomb disposal and other kinds of assistance to the army directly in the areas of combat actions.

Source: Zelenskyy submits draft law on multiple citizenship to parliament, record sheet for draft law no. 11469

Australia’s citizenship test should be provided in other languages, landmark review recommends

Government right not to accept this recommendation. Language central to integration and allowing immigrants to take the test in other languages weakens citizenship and integration:
The 200-page Multicultural Framework Review has been welcomed by advocates who are calling on all levels of government to update and improve what has been described as “fragmented” policy.
The review, which took more than a year to finalise, called on the federal government to action 29 recommendations, including 10 immediately.
They were made following consultation across Australia with more than 1,400 individuals and 750 organisations.
“Australia stands at a unique crossroads where we have a great opportunity to craft an inclusive future where not only do we celebrate our differences, but also our shared values to help form our national identity,” said Dr Bulent Hass Dellal, director of the Australian Multicultural Foundation and Chair of the review panel.
A key recommendation was a review of the citizenship test procedures, including incorporating languages other than English.
Managing Director of Migration Affairs Taraneh Arianfar said language requirements are an added burden on top of an already lengthy procedure.
“Apart from a very small category that are exempted from the exam, the test, the rest are required to do the test in English, which is very challenging for some groups, especially minority and refugees categories and some family visa-holders,” she said.
Another recommendation was the establishment of a Multicultural Affairs Commission and Commissioner, as well as a standalone Department of Multicultural Affairs, Immigration and Citizenship, with a dedicated minister.
A spokesperson from the Department of Home Affairs said the government “will draw from and embed the key features of the review … across all Commonwealth agencies and activities, now and into the future.”
The citizenship test plays an integral role in ensuring new citizens have “a basic knowledge of the English language and an understanding of Australia”, the spokesperson said, adding that a basic knowledge of English supports integration and participation in the community.
“The citizenship test will continue to be offered only in English as this reflects the role our national language plays in unifying the community and ensuring those who become citizens can fully participate in Australian society,” the spokesperson said.
“The department continuously monitors the operation of the test in order to consider any potential adjustments and support that may be needed.”

The ‘dangerous potential’ for one factor to create more unrest in Australian communities

The Refugee Council of Australia (RCOA) welcomed the recommendation to review the citizenship test.
“In too many cases, we see families divided between those who are able to pass the citizenship and those who cannot,” RCOA chief executive officer Paul Power said.
“Instead of penalising those with low English proficiency, we should strive to encourage all individuals to become citizens and contribute to Australian society. We urge the government to implement the Panel’s recommendation for a comprehensive review of the citizenship test.”
Despite committing $100 million to support multiculturalism, the government is yet to accept any specific recommendations, Professor of Sociology Andrew Jakubowicz pointed out.
“A lot of the recommendations of the review relate to parts of government doing new things, and there’s no framework until the multicultural commission is established, if it is established, of ensuring that those sorts of things happen.”
Among the further recommendations are to develop a national plan to celebrate Australia’s cultural diversity.
A full list of the recommendations can be seen HERE.

Source: Australia’s citizenship test should be provided in other languages, landmark review recommends

Court grants Ottawa four more months to fix unconstitutional ‘lost Canadians’ law

Expected. Original deadline totally unreasonable given legislative processes:

A court has granted the federal government more time to amend unconstitutional legislation concerning so-called “lost Canadians.”

The deadline extension — to Dec. 19 — is the second the courts have given Ottawa to amend the law, which prevents some Canadians born abroad from passing on their citizenship to children also born abroad.

Bill C-71, which introduces sweeping changes to Canada’s citizenship laws, is set to become law by Dec. 19. The federal government says the legislation addresses the court’s concerns about constitutionality.

In her decision to grant the extension, Ontario Superior Court Justice Jasmine Akbarali said the government was able to address concerns about the hardship Canadians could face if the amended legislation is delayed again.

“The mechanism in place to address urgent cases of hardship is sufficient to ensure that an extension of the declaration of invalidity will not undermine confidence in the administration of justice,” the judge said in the decision.

Justice Akbarali initially gave Ottawa until June 20 to amend the current Citizenship Act after the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled in late 2023 that it violated the constitutional rights of some Canadians born abroad.

The Liberal government did not get the bill passed through the House of Commons before it rose for the summer a few days before the deadline.

The government appealed for a six-month extension. Justice Akbarali handed down a seven-week extension, to Aug. 9.

In granting the original extension, the judge said the government would only have until Aug. 1 to present arguments on why she should consider another extension until Dec. 19.

Justice Akbarali ordered the government to file a plan to address the hardship experienced by parents under the existing law during the extended period and to “ideally” file a report on the steps required to get the bill passed before mid-December.

Sujit Choudhry, the lawyer who represented the families challenging the law, estimates that the current law violates the rights of at least 1.48 million Canadians here and abroad.

An estimated 170,000 women born abroad who are in the age range when people often start families are still being affected by the current law, the judge said in her June decision.

Justice Akbarali added these are not “theoretical or minor constitutional violations” but ones that could lead to “children being stateless.”

“They can lead to women having to make choices between their financial health and independence on one hand, and their physical health on the other. They can separate families,” Akbarali said in the decision.

“They can force children to stay in places that are unsafe for them. They can interfere with some of the deepest and most profound connections that human beings both enjoy and need.”

Until Bill C-71 is passed, the government can grant citizenship to lost Canadians at Immigration Minister Marc Miller’s discretion.

Source: Court grants Ottawa four more months to fix unconstitutional ‘lost Canadians’ law