Consular policy shift a solution in search of a clear problem

Good piece by Natalie Brender on the recommendation for a shift in consular policy to address “Canadians of convenience”, noting some of the practicalities and other issues involved (see also Doug Saunders’ Deny assistance to Canadians living abroad? It won’t work – The Globe and Mail):

This perspective would suggest, for example, that if there’s a major problem of expatriate “free-riders” reaping the benefits of citizenship without making equivalent contributions to Canada, it could be reasonable to square matters from a fiscal angle by imposing a higher charge for renewal of expatriate Canadians’ passports. The goal of limiting “free-ridership” would also support the government’s move in 2008 to restrict transmission of Canadian citizenship to one generation born abroad.

All parties involved in the ongoing discussion about Canadian citizenship — politicians, bureaucrats, citizens and the media — would help make the conversation about policy solutions more lucid if they began with a clearer focus on what the “Canadians of convenience” problem is really all about.

Consular policy shift a solution in search of a clear problem

Australians fighting in Syria could lose citizenship, Scott Morrison signals | World news | theguardian.com

Further to similar British measures (British fighters in Syria stripped of UK citizenship), appears that Australia is also considering similar measures. Given upcoming changes to The Canadian Citizenship Act, this may be something that we may see in Canada as well:

Australia, the minister said, had powers to stop potential combatants leaving Australia through the cancellation of travel documents, but added the Australian government lacked the British government’s more wide-ranging powers under the citizenship act. In the UK, the home secretary can strip dual nationals of their British citizenship if it has been obtained fraudulently, or if citizenship is not in the public interest.

“We are looking right now at all the options that are before us to strengthen powers when necessary,” Morrison told 2GB on Monday. “We are looking at every option available to us. We don’t want those troubles in this country and people who bring them here should not come.”

Referring explicitly to the revocation of Australian citizenship for dual nationals, Morrison said the Australian government would “definitely want to have things of that order to enable you to protect the country from the incursion of that sort of violent and unhelpful views”.

“You want to arm yourself with all the necessary powers to deal with what is a very serious threat to Australia if people come here and seek to stir up trouble,” the minister said. “The Abbott government is pretty clear: we are not going to put up with this sort of thing.”

Australians fighting in Syria could lose citizenship, Scott Morrison signals | World news | theguardian.com.

Becoming Canadian by Elke Winter » Institute for Research on Public Policy

The more classic citizenship as integration perspective by Elke Winter of University of Ottawa:

At the level of discourse, Winter observes that there has been a potentially troublesome shift in how Canadian citizenship is presented. In her view, depicting prospective citizens as fraudulent and mischievous can fan insecurity and distrust in the population. This holds true for singling out specific religions and cultures as potentially less adaptable than others. She also raises concerns about the increased emphasis — in the citizenship guide and elsewhere — on Canada’s military history, British traditions and the monarchy. In her view, this runs counter to the ethos of multiculturalism, which replaced the dominant ideology of conformity to Anglophone norms around 40 years ago. Winter concludes that we should monitor these developments, not least because they convey messages that may be counterproductive to the successful integration of immigrants from diverse backgrounds.

While there is merit to her views on the content of Canadian citizenship, there is much less so on her dismissal of the need for greater program integrity. Citizenship policy aims to balance facilitation – being relatively easy to acquire, and meaningfulness, being more difficult through a more consistent set of requirements and assessment. She is correct that the changes introduced by Minister Kenney remained within the overall Canadian approach to citizenship.

And a bit surprising that she didn’t read the sections in my book, Policy Arrogance or Innocent Bias: Resetting Citizenship and Multiculturalism, that covered many of the changes that she described. But her reliance on media and other academics meant she missed some of the important details that would have nuanced her arguments, in some case reinforcing them, in others weakening them. Examples include:

  • Discover Canada focusses section focuses too much on the minor revisions and doesn’t discuss the language level of the guide (well above CLB 4, the required level);
  • Citizenship test does not mention absence of focus group testing, which contributed to a harder experience and requirement for retest (and education was the key determinant of success);
  • Winter’s discussion of fraud tends to discount the importance of program integrity, important by itself as well as to ensure general support for immigration, citizenship and multiculturalism;
  • Citizenship ceremony changes were more widespread than the presence of the military and/or RCMP. Rather than distributing the Charter, a new booklet was provided, with about half of the content referring to the Crown. And the niqab was a secondary issue, and Minister Kenney’s position on religious freedom and the niqab evolved over time. Citing the court challenge to the Oath to the Queen as indicating increased support for change is an overstatement at best; and,
  • Changes to the language requirements were changes to the process, as the formal requirement – administered inconsistently in the past – remained at CLB 4, unchanged.

Becoming Canadian » Institute for Research on Public Policy.

Citizenship changes work against immigrant integration, report finds – The Star

Is the Conservatives’ Canada 150 roadmap out of step with the public? – Politics – CBC News

Not terribly surprising, as I have not seen focus group or polling results that indicate otherwise (if any of my readers have, please share):

According to TNS Canadian Facts, which conducted the research, when asked what “characteristics” should be front and centre in the design, the key adjectives put forward were celebration, pride, party, multiculturalism and immigration, diversity, history, youth and unity.

“From the words that people chose to describe this event, it is clear that the communications should focus on the celebration of Canada’s diversity and multiculturalism as a country, as well as appeal to the younger generation as much as possible” the report concluded.

The thematic mismatch may go deeper than logos or keywords, however. …

The Canada 150 website encourages Canadians to “celebrate and reflect on Canadian patriotism, sacrifice and commitment to service, the value of personal responsibility, hard work and family, national stability, the rights and duties of citizenship, and fairness and inclusiveness.”

Is the Conservatives’ Canada 150 roadmap out of step with the public? – Politics – CBC News.

Deny assistance to Canadians living abroad? It won’t work – The Globe and Mail

There is a real issue here, both financial and philosophical (what should be the extent of consular service provided to Canadian citizens that have minimal connection to Canada). Saunders is a bit too dismissive of the officials who quite properly identified the issue and possible options, although he does have a point on implementation challenges and risks. And a nice plug for the upcoming Citizenship Act proposed extension of residency requirements (which will not solve the consular issue, however):

And it would need to be very well-run indeed, because the risks are horrendous: Do we really want to create a situation where we will refuse to come to the aid of a Canadian citizen in deep trouble, just because she has a good job abroad and hasn’t had the wherewithal to take a trip home for a couple of years? Do we want to risk having a Canadian die abroad of a treatable malady, or suffer torture in a foreign prison, because we have inaccurately gauged their days spent in Canada?

It would be near-impossible to implement, open to tragic flaws, and probably unconstitutional.

Far better to deal with the problem of “Canadians of convenience” using a policy change suggested by Chris Alexander, the minister of citizenship and immigration: Change the rules for obtaining Canadian citizenship so that you’re required to have lived in Canada for four out of the last six years, rather than three out of the last four years.

This longer residency requirement would put Canada in line with many other Western countries. And it would solve the problem at its source, rather than through an awkward, expensive, inhumane and probably illegal attempt to deny assistance to Canadians abroad.

Deny assistance to Canadians living abroad? It won’t work – The Globe and Mail.

The background article is here.

British fighters in Syria stripped of UK citizenship | Al Bawaba

While revocation of citizenship is understandable under such circumstances, the question arises about due process given the apparently high level of Ministerial discretion.

Will be interesting to see if any similar provisions make it into the proposed changes to the Canadian Citizenship Act.

British fighters in Syria stripped of UK citizenship | Al Bawaba.

Passports are powerful tools: Brender | Toronto Star

As the government prepares to table its revisions to the Citizenship Act, likely focussing on further improving the integrity and meaningfulness of citizenship, including making it harder to obtain, commentary by Natalie Brender on the realities of instrumental citizenship and passport, and how they should be part of the conversation.

One of the tensions all governments face is the balance between attracting the more dynamic and mobile economic immigrants through facilitating citizenship and making citizenship more difficult, which may make countries less “competitive” in attracting immigrants.

Is all this scheming and tit-for-tat a fair way for the business of citizenship to be run? Maybe not, but very little about passports and citizenship is fair in light of the dangers and protections they bring. It’s not fair that those in war-torn or dead-end countries who have the right cash and connections get to resettle abroad while their poorer compatriots are trapped in place. And which of us wouldn’t avail ourselves of any foreign passport we could if we lived in desperate conditions here in Canada?

These aren’t comfortable realities to face. Many politicians and citizens alike would rather change the topic by hewing to a loftier notion of citizenship as a marker of loyalty, shared values and a common fate. We’re lucky that a passport is more than just a tool in Canada, where it also symbolizes shared values and reciprocal obligations between government and citizens. That said, discussions and policy-setting must take into account more than just the high principles of citizenship. Most of the hardest questions are bound up with the geopolitical realities, economic pressures and human strivings that make a passport one of the most prized commodities existing today.

These thoughts suggest that realism and sympathy are in order as the government proceeds with its citizenship review in 2014. There’s not much danger that the new citizenship rules will constrain Ottawa’s ability to extend Canadian passports as a tool for serving pressing economic interests. But in its zeal to defend “the value of Canadian citizenship,” the Harper government may depict that value in ways that obscure broader global realities and blunt our sympathies. Acknowledging clearly the many ways in which a passport is indeed a tool, as well as a political emblem, will make for a healthier national conversation about citizenship policy.

Passports are powerful tools: Brender | Toronto Star.

Immigrants don’t turn ‘blue’ the moment they arrive – The Globe and Mail

A useful counterpoint to the thesis of John Ibbitson and Darrell Bricker in The Big Shift, by Michael Adams and Robin Brown, nuancing the Ibbitson-Bricker argument that Canadian immigrants and new Canadians are inherently more conservative politically:

But the story is more complicated.

The idea that migrant attitudes are defined by a focus on economic mobility is outdated. These days, middle-class Chinese and Indians who are solely focused on material gain are better off staying in their home countries. Today’s migrants are often people who voluntarily accept a decline in status and even income to move to Canada. Young professional immigrants who choose Canada are often seeking gains in quality of life more than standard of living. Focus group participants have told us they want to raise their children outside the hierarchies and pressures of their home countries. South Asian immigrants, in particular, are attracted to Canada’s multicultural society, believing they and their children are enriched through exposure to diverse cultures. Many of the Chinese immigrants we speak to are tired of “striving” and are trading off more opportunity in China for less stress in Canada.

One of the success stories of Canada’s model of immigration, citizenship and multiculturalism is that all parties engage ethnic communities. Minister Kenney is the best illustration of this approach, given his extensive and energetic outreach.

Unlike in Europe or the US, there is no xenophobic political party. Immigration-related debates are over policy and program approaches, not the fundamental view of Canada as a diverse, multicultural society.

Immigrants don’t turn ‘blue’ the moment they arrive – The Globe and Mail.

The reply by Bricker and Ibbitson based upon a wider survey and the election results, showing gains for the Conservatives in ridings with a large proportion of ethnic voters:

 You have to figure immigrants out to win elections 

The counterpart to both articles is of course Susan Delacourt’s Shopping for Votes, which downplays macro trends given that parties, and the Conservatives have done that particularly well, are micro-targeting in terms of policies and programs, treating voters more as consumers than with fixed party preferences.

Citizenship Round-Up: Nine Trends from 2013

A good overview by Peter Spiro of some current citizenship trends:

  1. Citizenship is not priceless.

  2. Even the Germans can live with dual citizenship

  3. American no more.

  4. Foreigners have privacy rights, too.

  5. A human right to citizenship.

  6. Obama’s gives up on The New Citizenship.

  7. Ted Cruz may be a Canadian, but he is eligible for the presidency.

  8. The path to legal residency matters more than the path to citizenship.

  9. Recementing ties to long-lost brothers and sisters.

And a couple to watch for 2014: what would be the UK/EU citizenship mechanics of Scottish independence; will increasingly common birth tourism packages revive efforts to scale back birthright citizenship in the US; and how will citizenships of convenience play out in the Sochi Olympics.

Blog Archive Citizenship Round-Up: Nine Trends from 2013 » Opinio Juris.

When Tim’s is more popular than the Queen, how to tell Canada’s story? – The Globe and Mail

Jack Jedwab of the Association of Canadian Studies on recent polling data on elements of the national narrative. Not surprisingly, the Charter still holds first place, probably to the chagrin of the government which has downplayed the Charter and given greater prominence to the Monarchy. In Delacourt’s Shopping for Votes, there is a good section on how Tim Horton advertising captures citizenship better than the government (here).

But the broader challenge remains:

In a regionally diverse and demographically pluralist country like Canada it is no simple task to establish an official or common narrative. It is essential to promote ongoing discussion and debate about the Canadian story that highlights its historic achievements and past failings. That many of us arrive at different conclusions about the meaning of our shared past is the sign of a healthy democracy far more so than a problem for societal cohesion. As we approach the 150th anniversary of Canada we should seize the opportunity to embark upon a national conversation about the nation’s past so as to enhance collective knowledge about ourselves.

When Tim’s is more popular than the Queen, how to tell Canada’s story? – The Globe and Mail.