Change to Birthright Citizenship Would Affect Visa Holders, Too

2025/01/23 Leave a comment

One of the better overviews, covering the politics, legal aspects and operational practicalities (some familiar to Canadian issues under the Conservative government in 2012):

President Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship declares that babies born to many temporary residents of the United States — not just those in the country illegally — must be denied automatic citizenship, a dramatic rejection of rights that have been part of the Constitution for more than 150 years.

If the courts do not block the order, babies born to women living legally, but temporarily, in the United States — such as people studying on a student visa or workers hired by high-tech companies — will not automatically be recognized by the federal government as U.S. citizens if the father is also not a permanent resident.

Aides to Mr. Trump had told reporters on Monday morning that the order would apply to “children of illegal aliens born in the United States.” In fact, the language in the order Mr. Trump signed, titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” goes much further.

“It’s a shocking attack on people in this country who are here lawfully, played by the rules and are benefiting the country,” said David Leopold, the chair of the immigration practice at the law firm UB Greensfelder. “We’re talking about people who are doing cutting-edge research in the United States, researchers, people who are here to help us.”

The order was part of a barrage of actions that Mr. Trump authorized on Monday to carry out his vision of a country with far less immigration. Despite claims he repeated on Monday that “I’m fine with legal immigration; I like it,” the president’s new orders would also severely curtail the options of those looking to enter the United States legally.

Many of the president’s closest advisers, including Stephen Miller, his deputy chief of staff and the architect of his immigration policy, have urged a tough line on birthright citizenship. During Mr. Trump’s first term, Mr. Miller and other aides pushed to make sure that immigrants could no longer establish what they call an “anchor” in the United States by having a baby who automatically becomes an American citizen.

In addition to targeting birthright citizenship, Mr. Trump on Monday barred asylum for immigrants seeking to cross the southern border, imposed an indefinite suspension of the legal refugee system, terminated several legal pathways for immigrants put in place by the Biden administration and declared the existence of an “invasion” from immigrants aimed at giving the federal government broad powers to stop all kinds of people from entering.

The executive order regarding birthright citizenship says that right will be denied for babies born to parents who are not citizens or permanent residents with green cards, including women who are “visiting on a student, work or tourist visa” if the father is not a citizen or a legal permanent resident. In that case, the order says, “no department or agency of the United States government shall issue documents recognizing United States citizenship.”

There are serious questions about how Mr. Trump’s administration would impose such a dramatic change in policy.

Currently, the citizenship of babies born in the United States is documented in a two-step process.

First, the state or territorial government will issue a birth certificate confirming where and when the birth took place. The birth certificate does not include any information about the immigration status of the baby’s parents.

Second, when that baby (or the parents, on the child’s behalf) applies for a passport, the birth certificate showing that the baby was born on U.S. soil is enough to prove citizenship. No other documentation is required.

Mr. Trump’s executive order indicates that in 30 days, all federal agencies will be required to confirm the immigration status of the parents before issuing documents like a passport.

Left unclear, however, is how that would be put into practice.

One option would be for state agencies to check the immigration status of parents and include that information on birth certificates. Then, when passports are requested, the federal government would be able to determine which babies qualify for automatic citizenship.

It could take years, however, for states to put in place a system that checks the immigration status of all parents — assuming they are willing to do so. The federal government could establish guidelines for the required information, but it would most likely be up to the states to decide how and whether to gather that data from parents when they issue a birth certificate.

If the states do not overhaul the birth certificate process, the federal government could seek to enforce Mr. Trump’s order by requiring people applying for passports to present both a birth certificate and proof of their parents’ citizenship status when they were born.

That could become extremely cumbersome, legal experts said, particularly for people with complicated family dynamics or missing legal documents.

Several White House officials did not respond to questions seeking clarification about how the order might be carried out.

Legal scholars and immigration advocates said on Tuesday that they were stunned by the breadth of the order.

Advocates are hoping that judges will step in and put it on hold before it is set to take effect on Feb. 20. The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit in federal court in New Hampshire on Monday night challenging the order, just hours after the president signed it.

And on Tuesday, attorneys general from 22 states and two cities sued Mr. Trump to block the executive order. Rulings by either judge could temporarily suspend the order, prompting what could be a monthslong legal battle that could end up before the Supreme Court.

“It’s very clear that they mean to double down on their nativistic anti-immigrant agenda, and that denying citizenship to children born in the U.S. has got to be a core part of their plan,” said Anthony Romero, the executive director of the A.C.L.U. “If we were to repeal birthright citizenship, it would create a legal vehicle for intergenerational stigma and discrimination that would undo the very core of this grand American experiment.”

Birthright citizenship in the United States was put in place after the Civil War to allow Black people to be citizens. The 14th Amendment says that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” Before the amendment was ratified in 1868, even free Black men and women could not become citizens.

Mr. Trump argues that his administration is within its rights to interpret what the writers of the amendment meant.

“The 14th Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States,” his executive order said.

Many lawyers say that is flatly wrong. In their legal brief, the A.C.L.U.’s lawyers argued that the meaning of the 14th Amendment had been settled law for more than 125 years. They cited an 1898 case called United States v. Wong Kim Ark, in which they said the Supreme Court “emphatically rejected the last effort to undercut birthright citizenship.”

“The executive order is certainly unconstitutional,” said Cecillia Wang, the A.C.L.U.’s national legal director. “It’s fair to say that if the court were to uphold Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order, it would lose all legitimacy in the eyes of the people and in the history books.”…

Source: Change to Birthright Citizenship Would Affect Visa Holders, Too

Filed under Birthright Citizenship, Citizenship Tagged with , , , , , ,

Halt of ‘Lost Canadians’ bill could mean citizenship for thousands born to parents with no ties to Canada

2025/01/22 Leave a comment

The current government needs to seek an extension (and allow enough time for a new government to pass needed legislation) and Judge Akbarali needs to acknowledge the political reality behind an extension and thus not enable such a vacuum.

The expected Conservative government should reintroduce the C-71 residency test approach but, crucially, require the residency be met within five years:

Ottawa’s failure to pass a bill granting citizenship to Lost Canadians – children born abroad to foreign-born Canadians – could lead to thousands of people whose parents have never been here automatically qualifying as citizens.

Bill C-71 was one of 26 pieces of legislation stopped in its tracks this month by the proroguing of Parliament.

It was introduced by the federal government last year after an Ontario court ruled that it is unconstitutional to deny citizenship to children born in another country to Canadians also born outside Canada.

The bill is meant to reverse a change by Stephen Harper’s Conservative government in 2009 that stripped children of a Canadian parent born outside Canada of their automatic right to citizenship.

But now experts warn that the figure could be much higher. If the bill dies, thousands more children of Canadians born abroad, to those who have never been to Canada, would qualify for citizenship when the court ruling comes into effect in March, without added restrictions on who can be a citizen.

As well as restoring citizenship rights, Bill C-71 also limits who can pass on citizenship to ensure that Canadians born abroad, who have spent their entire lives outside Canada, would not be able to automatically confer the right to a Canadian passport onto their children. They would have to show, under the bill, that they were physically in Canada for at least 1,095 days (the equivalent of three years cumulatively) before their child’s birth.

Lawyer Sujit Choudhry, head of Hāki Chambers, who successfully brought the court challenge on behalf of his Lost Canadian clients, said Bill C-71 would have not only ended the second-generation cutoff but would have brought in “a substantial connection test.“

NDP immigration critic Jenny Kwan said the death of the legislation, which she said was now likely, would mean that there are no safeguards requiring links to Canada….

Source: Halt of ‘Lost Canadians’ bill could mean citizenship for thousands born to parents with no ties to Canada

Filed under C-71, Citizenship Tagged with ,

Trump Executive Orders of Interest

2025/01/21 Leave a comment

Many of these will be subject to litigation. Similarly to the Harper government’s titles of legislation, the titles have political rather than more neutral language. A selection of the one’s I will be watching in particular and expect considerable commentary and likely legal challenges:

Citizenship

PROTECTING THE MEANING AND VALUE OF AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP [ACLU and others already submitted a legal challenge, and it appears to be framed more broadly than just women not in the USA legally as it includes temporary residents such as international students and workers. Indian media has particularly flagged impact on H1-B and other visa holders.]

Section 1.  Purpose.  The privilege of United States citizenship is a priceless and profound gift.  The Fourteenth Amendment states:  “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”  That provision rightly repudiated the Supreme Court of the United States’s shameful decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), which misinterpreted the Constitution as permanently excluding people of African descent from eligibility for United States citizenship solely based on their race. 

But the Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States.  The Fourteenth Amendment has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”  Consistent with this understanding, the Congress has further specified through legislation that “a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is a national and citizen of the United States at birth, 8 U.S.C. 1401, generally mirroring the Fourteenth Amendment’s text.  

Among the categories of individuals born in the United States and not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, the privilege of United States citizenship does not automatically extend to persons born in the United States:  (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States at the time of said person’s birth was lawful but temporary (such as, but not limited to, visiting the United States under the auspices of the Visa Waiver Program or visiting on a student, work, or tourist visa) and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.

Sec. 2.  Policy.  (a)  It is the policy of the United States that no department or agency of the United States government shall issue documents recognizing United States citizenship, or accept documents issued by State, local, or other governments or authorities purporting to recognize United States citizenship, to persons:  (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States was lawful but temporary, and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.

Immigration

PROTECTING THE UNITED STATES FROM FOREIGN TERRORISTS AND OTHER NATIONAL SECURITY AND PUBLIC SAFETY THREATS

Section 1.  Policy and Purpose.  (a)  It is the policy of the United States to protect its citizens from aliens who intend to commit terrorist attacks, threaten our national security, espouse hateful ideology, or otherwise exploit the immigration laws for malevolent purposes.

(b)  To protect Americans, the United States must be vigilant during the visa-issuance process to ensure that those aliens approved for admission into the United States do not intend to harm Americans or our national interests.  More importantly, the United States must identify them before their admission or entry into the United States.  And the United States must ensure that admitted aliens and aliens otherwise already present in the United States do not bear hostile attitudes toward its citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles, and do not advocate for, aid, or support designated foreign terrorists and other threats to our national security.

PROTECTING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AGAINST INVASION

Section 1.  Purpose.  Over the last 4 years, the prior administration invited, administered, and oversaw an unprecedented flood of illegal immigration into the United States.  Millions of illegal aliens crossed our borders or were permitted to fly directly into the United States on commercial flights and allowed to settle in American communities, in violation of longstanding Federal laws.

Many of these aliens unlawfully within the United States present significant threats to national security and public safety, committing vile and heinous acts against innocent Americans.  Others are engaged in hostile activities, including espionage, economic espionage, and preparations for terror-related activities.  Many have abused the generosity of the American people, and their presence in the United States has cost taxpayers billions of dollars at the Federal, State, and local levels.

Enforcing our Nation’s immigration laws is critically important to the national security and public safety of the United States.  The American people deserve a Federal Government that puts their interests first and a Government that understands its sacred obligation to prioritize the safety, security, and financial and economic well-being of Americans.

This order ensures that the Federal Government protects the American people by faithfully executing the immigration laws of the United States.

SECURING OUR BORDERS

Section 1.  Purpose.  Over the last 4 years, the United States has endured a large-scale invasion at an unprecedented level.  Millions of illegal aliens from nations and regions all around the world successfully entered the United States where they are now residing, including potential terrorists, foreign spies, members of cartels, gangs, and violent transnational criminal organizations, and other hostile actors with malicious intent.

Deadly narcotics and other illicit materials have flowed across the border while agents and officers spend their limited resources processing illegal aliens for release into the United States.  These catch-and-release policies undermine the rule of law and our sovereignty, create substantial risks to public safety and security, and divert critical resources away from stopping the entry of contraband and fugitives into the United States.  

We have limited information on the precise whereabouts of a great number of these illegal aliens who have entered the United States over the last 4 years.

This cannot stand.  A nation without borders is not a nation, and the Federal Government must act with urgency and strength to end the threats posed by an unsecured border.

REALIGNING THE UNITED STATES REFUGEE ADMISSIONS PROGRAM

Section 1.  Purpose.  Over the last 4 years, the United States has been inundated with record levels of migration, including through the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP).  Cities and small towns alike, from Charleroi, Pennsylvania, and Springfield, Ohio, to Whitewater, Wisconsin, have seen significant influxes of migrants.  Even major urban centers such as New York City, Chicago, and Denver have sought Federal aid to manage the burden of new arrivals.  Some jurisdictions, like New York and Massachusetts, have even recently declared states of emergency because of increased migration.

The United States lacks the ability to absorb large numbers of migrants, and in particular, refugees, into its communities in a manner that does not compromise the availability of resources for Americans, that protects their safety and security, and that ensures the appropriate assimilation of refugees.  This order suspends the USRAP until such time as the further entry into the United States of refugees aligns with the interests of the United States.

CLARIFYING THE MILITARY’S ROLE IN PROTECTING THE TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY OF THE UNITED STATES

Section 1.  Purpose.  (a)  As Chief Executive and as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States, I have no more solemn responsibility than protecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the United States along our national borders.  The protection of a nation’s territorial integrity and national boundaries is paramount for its security.

(b)  The Armed Forces of the United States have played a long and well-established role in securing our borders against threats of invasion, against unlawful forays by foreign nationals into the United States, and against other transnational criminal activities that violate our laws and threaten the peace, harmony, and tranquility of the Nation.  These threats have taken a variety of forms over our Nation’s history, but the Armed Forces have consistently played an integral role in protecting the sovereignty of the United States.

(c)  Threats against our Nation’s sovereignty continue today, and it is essential that the Armed Forces staunchly continue to participate in the defense of our territorial integrity and sovereignty.  A National Emergency currently exists along the southern border of the United States.  Unchecked unlawful mass migration and the unimpeded flow of opiates across our borders continue to endanger the safety and security of the American people and encourage further lawlessness.  Accordingly, through this order, I am acting in accordance with my solemn duty to protect and defend the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the United States along our national borders.

DEI

ENDING RADICAL AND WASTEFUL GOVERNMENT DEI PROGRAMS AND PREFERENCING

Section 1.  Purpose and Policy.  The Biden Administration forced illegal and immoral discrimination programs, going by the name “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI), into virtually all aspects of the Federal Government, in areas ranging from airline safety to the military.  This was a concerted effort stemming from President Biden’s first day in office, when he issued Executive Order 13985, “Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government.”

Pursuant to Executive Order 13985 and follow-on orders, nearly every Federal agency and entity submitted “Equity Action Plans” to detail the ways that they have furthered DEIs infiltration of the Federal Government.  The public release of these plans demonstrated immense public waste and shameful discrimination.  That ends today.  Americans deserve a government committed to serving every person with equal dignity and respect, and to expending precious taxpayer resources only on making America great.

DEFENDING WOMEN FROM GENDER IDEOLOGY EXTREMISM AND RESTORING BIOLOGICAL TRUTH TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Section 1.  Purpose.  Across the country, ideologues who deny the biological reality of sex have increasingly used legal and other socially coercive means to permit men to self-identify as women and gain access to intimate single-sex spaces and activities designed for women, from women’s domestic abuse shelters to women’s workplace showers.  This is wrong.  Efforts to eradicate the biological reality of sex fundamentally attack women by depriving them of their dignity, safety, and well-being.  The erasure of sex in language and policy has a corrosive impact not just on women but on the validity of the entire American system.  Basing Federal policy on truth is critical to scientific inquiry, public safety, morale, and trust in government itself.

This unhealthy road is paved by an ongoing and purposeful attack against the ordinary and longstanding use and understanding of biological and scientific terms, replacing the immutable biological reality of sex with an internal, fluid, and subjective sense of self unmoored from biological facts.  Invalidating the true and biological category of “woman” improperly transforms laws and policies designed to protect sex-based opportunities into laws and policies that undermine them, replacing longstanding, cherished legal rights and values with an identity-based, inchoate social concept.

Accordingly, my Administration will defend women’s rights and protect freedom of conscience by using clear and accurate language and policies that recognize women are biologically female, and men are biologically male. 

Government

RESTORING ACCOUNTABILITY FOR CAREER SENIOR EXECUTIVES

Career Senior Executive Service (SES) officials are charged to “ensure that the executive management of the Government of the United States is responsive to the needs, policies, and goals of the Nation and otherwise is of the highest quality,” as required by section 3131 of title 5, United States Code.  SES officials have enormous influence over the functioning of the Federal Government, and thus the well-being of hundreds of millions of Americans.  

As the Constitution makes clear, and as the Supreme Court of the United States has reaffirmed, “the ‘executive Power’ — all of it — is ‘vested in a President,’ who must ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.’”  Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U.S. 197, 203 (2020).  “Because no single person could fulfill that responsibility alone, the Framers expected that the President would rely on subordinate officers for assistance.”  Id. at 203–04.  

The President’s power to remove subordinates is a core part of the Executive power vested by Article II of the Constitution and is necessary for the President to perform his duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”  Because SES officials wield significant governmental authority, they must serve at the pleasure of the President. 

Only that chain of responsibility ensures that SES officials are properly accountable to the President and the American people.  If career SES officials fail to faithfully fulfill their duties to advance the needs, policies, and goals of the United States, the President must be able to rectify the situation and ensure that the entire Executive Branch faithfully executes the law.  For instance, SES officials who engage in unauthorized disclosure of Executive Branch deliberations, violate the constitutional rights of Americans, refuse to implement policy priorities, or perform their duties inefficiently or negligently should be held accountable. 

RESTORING ACCOUNTABILITY TO POLICY-INFLUENCING
POSITIONS WITHIN THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE

Section 1.  Purpose.  Article II of the United States Constitution vests the President with the sole and exclusive authority over the executive branch, including the authority to manage the Federal workforce to ensure effective execution of Federal law.  A critical aspect of this executive function is the responsibility to maintain professionalism and accountability within the civil service.  This accountability is sorely lacking today.  Only 41 percent of civil service supervisors are confident that they can remove an employee who engaged in insubordination or serious misconduct.  Even fewer supervisors –- 26 percent — are confident that they can remove an employee for poor performance.

Accountability is essential for all Federal employees, but it is especially important for those who are in policy-influencing positions.  These personnel are entrusted to shape and implement actions that have a significant impact on all Americans.  Any power they have is delegated by the President, and they must be accountable to the President, who is the only member of the executive branch, other than the Vice President, elected and directly accountable to the American people.  In recent years, however, there have been numerous and well-documented cases of career Federal employees resisting and undermining the policies and directives of their executive leadership.  Principles of good administration, therefore, necessitate action to restore accountability to the career civil service, beginning with positions of a confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character.

RESTORING FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ENDING FEDERAL CENSORSHIP

Section 1.  Purpose.  The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, an amendment essential to the success of our Republic, enshrines the right of the American people to speak freely in the public square without Government interference.  Over the last 4 years, the previous administration trampled free speech rights by censoring Americans’ speech on online platforms, often by exerting substantial coercive pressure on third parties, such as social media companies, to moderate, deplatform, or otherwise suppress speech that the Federal Government did not approve.  Under the guise of combatting “misinformation,” “disinformation,” and “malinformation,” the Federal Government infringed on the constitutionally protected speech rights of American citizens across the United States in a manner that advanced the Government’s preferred narrative about significant matters of public debate.  Government censorship of speech is intolerable in a free society.

Source: https://www.whitehouse.gov/news/

Filed under Citizenship, Immigration Tagged with , ,

Birthright Citizenship Defined America. Trump Wants to Redefine It.

2025/01/20 Leave a comment

Good long and informative read:

When the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, it defined the United States nearly as deeply as the nation’s founding documents. “It’s certainly the most important change in the Constitution since the Bill of Rights,” the historian Eric Foner told me.

The amendment grants citizenship to almost everyone born inside the country — a rare policy for an advanced economy in the 21st century. Among the 20 most developed countries in the world, only Canada and the United States allocate citizenship using the legal principle of jus soli, the right of soil.

President-elect Donald J. Trump has vowed to overturn territorial birthright citizenship. “We’re going to have to get it changed,” he told NBC News during his first extended interview after winning the election in November. “We’re going to end that because it’s ridiculous.”

Trump has said that he will release an executive order denying birthright citizenship to the children of “illegal aliens” on the first day that he takes office. Members of his team have told The New York Times that his administration will not issue passports and Social Security cards to children born to undocumented parents. These moves will inevitably be challenged in court, where the fate of birthright citizenship is likely to be decided.

Efforts to end birthright citizenship for the children of unauthorized migrants date back more than four decades, but Trump’s return will most likely present one of the greatest challenges in the 14th Amendment’s 157-year history. Legal arguments that were once regarded as fringe have moved to the mainstream. The Supreme Court has proved itself willing to break with historical precedent in cases involving other conservative priorities, like abortion and presidential immunity. And Trump, who campaigned on the idea of restricting birthright citizenship, is entering office with a majority of the vote….

Source: Birthright Citizenship Defined America. Trump Wants to Redefine It.

Filed under Birthright Citizenship, Citizenship Tagged with , ,

There hasn’t been an in-person citizenship ceremony in Thunder Bay for years. A petition aims to change that

2025/01/20 Leave a comment

A reminder of the importance of in-person ceremonies vs virtual “marginalized to such a small and lackluster event”:

Greta Piazza says becoming a Canadian citizen in Thunder Bay, Ont., was a great feeling — but the moment would have felt more significant had the ceremony been held in person.

Piazza, who is from Arona, Italy, has been living in the northwestern Ontario city for about five years. She’s lived in a number of countries, including Spain, Portugal and Ireland, but was drawn to Canada by her husband, Tim Van Reenen.

She passed her Canadian citizenship test last year, but had to take her oath online.

“I would have been more happy to have it in person because it’s a different feeling,” Piazza said. “I could have been there with the other new citizen[s] and with the judge in person, the flags, the officials.”

“After the ceremony, you receive a citizen certificate. Receiving that in person probably would have … made the experience more real.”

The Thunder Bay Multicultural Association (TBMA), which offers classes to help people prepare for the citizenship test, helped organize the city’s ceremonies, which saw between 100 and 120 candidates each.

“They often had two ceremonies per year just because of the demand,” said the TBMA’s executive director, Cathy Woodbeck. “There were candidates from across northwestern Ontario.”

The ceremonies have been held virtually by video call since the COVID-19 pandemic. Last week, Thunder Bay resident Julie Hutka started a petition in the hopes of changing that.

“I think that it’s so important to have that opportunity to celebrate this major step in front of one’s family and friends and with other people who are stepping onto this journey, that it really should be in person,” Hutka said.

“Things can be streamlined for bureaucracy, but I don’t believe this is one of them that should be.”

Candidates may request format change: IRCC

Hutka has a family member going through the process of becoming a Canadian citizen. Her relative’s friend recently took the oath, and Hutka said she was shocked to learn it happened on a laptop at the kitchen table.

“I thought really, this is such a monumental moment in the long process to becoming a Canadian, that it is marginalized to such a small and lackluster event,” she said.

“My mother became a Canadian citizen many, many, many years ago and it was a real moment of pride just to watch my mother take this oath.”

CBC News reached out to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) and received an emailed statement on Tuesday.

“The Government of Canada is committed to continue delivering meaningful, celebratory and inclusive in-person and virtual ceremonies, in all regions of the country. Candidates are invited by the department to either an in-person or virtual ceremony based on operational considerations,” the statement says.

“Candidates may request a change of format (e.g. from virtual ceremony to in-person ceremony and vice-versa) and the department makes best efforts to accommodate their preference.”

However, the government’s webpage on citizenship ceremonies says “IRCC primarily holds citizenship ceremonies via video, and occasionally in-person.”

“In-person ceremonies are often organized when there is demand and/or multiple applicants from an area awaiting a ceremony,” the department said in its statement.

For Woodbeck, in-person citizenship ceremonies were always the highlight of her work.

“These are probably the best things we get to attend. We have such a good time. A lot of the staff here at the association have gone through this process, have come from other countries, have become Canadian citizens, so they remember that,” Woodbeck said.

The government’s response about in-person ceremonies is encouraging, she said, and she hopes to be able to plan an in-person event soon.

When she first arrived, Piazza received support from the TBMA in completing her temporary residency application and then permanent residency application. Now, she’s giving back by helping other newcomers in the city as a language interpreter services worker there.

She loves living in northwestern Ontario and spending time at Thunder Bay’s marina and nearby Kakabeka Falls, she added.

“Sometimes for a newcomer here, it’s really challenging to know how to go through processes, and [the TBMA] have always been a good support to me,” Piazza said. “It’s a very great support for all newcomers.”

Source: There hasn’t been an in-person citizenship ceremony in Thunder Bay for years. A petition aims to change that

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with ,

Trump’s A.G. Pick Adds Huge Asterisk to Birthright Citizenship

2025/01/17 Leave a comment

One really has to wonder whether these hearings are worthwhile given the high degree of politicization and polarization and the resulting evasiveness:

Pam Bondi, Donald Trump’s nominee for the next U.S. attorney general, refused to give a basic yes or no answer, during her confirmation hearing Wednesday, regarding her views on birthright citizenship, which is etched into the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.

“You’ve testified repeatedly to this committee that you will uphold the laws of this country and defend the Constitution of the United States,” said Democratic Senator Alex Padilla. “Do you believe birthright citizenship is the law of the land, and will you defend it regardless—a child born of the United States—regardless of their parents’ immigration status?”

Bondi refused to answer the question. “Senator, I will study birthright citizenship, I would love to meet with you regarding birthright citizenship—”

“Ma’am, you’re asking to be considered to serve as the attorney general of the United States, and you still need to study the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution?” Padilla retorted. “That is not helping me have more confidence in your ability to do this job.”

Bondi’s nonanswer is deference to President-elect Trump, who said he’d end birthright citizenship via executive order on Meet the Press in December.

The Fourteenth Amendment states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Source: Trump’s A.G. Pick Adds Huge Asterisk to Birthright Citizenship

Filed under Birthright Citizenship Tagged with , , ,

Sweden Planning to Tighten Citizenship Requirements Starting June 2026

2025/01/16 Leave a comment

More details on Swedish government plans:

KEY TAKEAWAYS

  • A report proposing the tightening of the Swedish citizenship criteria has been shared.
  • The report proposes that the residence period to be eligible to apply for Swedish citizenship be increased from the current five to eight years.
  • The report has also proposed that a stricter requirement for an honest lifestyle be introduced and self-sufficiency conditions be reinstated.

Sweden may soon tighten a number of citizenship requirements for foreign nationals who want to obtain the country’s passport, following proposals made in a new report.

The government-appointed investigator, Kirsi Laakso Utvik, presented the report with proposals to tighten the criteria for citizenship acquisition earlier this week.

After a thorough investigation on the matter,  the report proposes that several rules, including the residence period, be tightened for all future citizenship applicants, Schengen.News reports.

As the Swedish Ministry of Justice has revealed, the report requires that the country increase the residence period requirement by three years from the current five to eight years.

By increasing the residence period requirement, the report notes that the authorities would be able to better obtain information about the citizenship applicants and assess their lifestyle over time.

A requirement for a longer period of residence in Sweden is considered to improve, among other things, the authorities’ ability to obtain information about the applicant and assess his or her lifestyle over time.

Ministry of Justice of Sweden

Report Proposes Tightening of Several Other Rules

The report has also proposed that Sweden introduces a stricter requirement for “an honest lifestyle” to be eligible for Swedish citizenship.

As explained by the Ministry, the stricter requirement for an honest lifestyle means, among other things, that those who have committed a crime will have to wait for a longer period of time before they can be admitted as Swedish citizens.

In addition to the above-mentioned,  the report also proposes that citizenship applicants show self-sufficiency and that they have additional knowledge of Swedish society and culture.

Moreover, according to the proposal, applicants should also be required to prove that they have not received financial assistance for more than six months in the last three years prior to filing their citizenship application.

The concept of “livelihood” implies that one has such a level of income that there is no need to utilise the social welfare system. This income comes from wages and/or business activities.

Kirsi Laakso Utvik

Other proposals have also been made, but these are some of the most important.

As the Ministry noted, the report proposes that these changes to the citizenship rules enter into force on June 1, 2026. However, a final decision on the matter still needs to be made by the government before the citizenship criteria be tightened.

The Time of No Requirements Is Over, Migration Minister Says

Commenting on the proposals made in the report, the Swedish Migration Minister Johan Forssell said that the time of no requirements to become a citizen of the country is over.

According to him, in order to obtain Sweden’s passport, foreign nationals must make an effort to become part of the society.

Being granted Swedish citizenship is something you should feel proud of and should be given to people who have made an effort to become part of our society and who have done the right thing during the time they have been here.

Sweden’s Minister of Migration Johan Forssell

The Minister further noted that with the tightening of the requirements, those who want to become Swedish citizens will have to do more.

Source: Sweden Planning to Tighten Citizenship Requirements Starting June 2026

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with

Feds call on Islamic group to cancel alarming conference while security agencies consider terrorist designation

2025/01/15 Leave a comment

Wonder whether any of the organizers or planned attendees are Canadian citizenship who have taken the citizenship oath without obviously meaning it. Apparently, event has now been cancelled:

The federal government is calling on members of a controversial Islamic group to cancel their conference scheduled for this weekend while Canada’s security and intelligence agencies decide if it should be listed as an official terrorist entity.

A public outcry from civic leaders and Jewish organizations have attacked plans by Hizb ut Tahrir Canada to resurrect its annual Khilafah Conference, which calls for governments to be overthrown to invoke a Muslim caliphate where everyone lives under Islamic Shariah law.

Ottawa has now added a federal reprimand to the list of concerns over the agenda and ideology of the group, which is a branch of a strict international organization that is already banned in several countries.

“Reports of the upcoming Hizb ut-Tahrir (HuT) conference, scheduled for January 18, 2025 in Hamilton, Ontario are deeply concerning. Hizb ut-Tahrir has a documented history of glorifying violence and promoting antisemitism and extremist ideology,” David J. McGuinty, the new minister of Public Safety, and Rachel Bendayan, associate minister of Public Safety, said in a statement posted on social media.

“Its celebration of attacks on innocent civilians, including October 7th, and its support for banned terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah are entirely contrary to Canadian values of peace, inclusion, and respect for diversity. We unequivocally condemn their activities and the holding of such a conference — and call on the organizers to cancel their booking.”

“We have been assured that law enforcement agencies, including the RCMP, are monitoring the event closely and that all appropriate Canadian laws, including those pertaining to hate speech, will be enforced. Further, we can confirm that our security and intelligence agencies are currently assessing Hizb it-Tahrir (sic) for listing as a terrorist entity under Canadian law,” the statement continued.

A spokesman from Hizb ut Tahrir Canada could not immediately be reached for comment Monday evening. (The Canadian group often does not use a hyphen in its name like the international group usually does.)

The organization previously denied it was a public danger and said it was not involved in terrorist violence.

“Hizb ut Tahrir categorically rejects the use of violence or material means in its methodology. The accusations linking the party to terrorism, extremism and violent activities are fabrications aimed at tarnishing its reputation,” the group’s previous statement said.

Source: Feds call on Islamic group to cancel alarming conference while security agencies consider terrorist designation

Filed under Citizenship, Multiculturalism, Religion Tagged with ,

Canadian Immigration Tracker – November 2024

2025/01/15 Leave a comment

Highlights:

  • PR Admissions: Increase from 34,360 in October to 36,820 in November. November year-over-year change (change from 2022 in parentheses): Economic – PNP 25.0% (22.8%), Economic – Federal 38.2% (51.6%), Family 52.4% (84.0%), Refugees -19.3% (-12.6%)
    • Applications: Given time delays in entering application data, am using a six month time lag. Decrease from 54,001 in April to 44,040 in May. May year-over-year change (change from 2020): -10.7% (81.9%).
    • Express Entry and Arrima Invitations to Apply: Decline from 5,507 in November (0 Arrima) to 2,561 in December (0 Arrima). December year-over-year change (change from 2022): -84.2% (23.3%)
    • TR to PRs transition (i.e., those already in Canada): Increase from 13,135 in October (38.2% of all PRs) to 17,390 in November (47.2% of all PRs). November year-over-year change (change from 2022): 65.3% (347.0%)
  • Temporary Residents:
    • TRs/IMP: Decrease from 60,945 in October to 48,560 in November. November year-over-year (change from 2022): Agreements: 29.0% (-30.4%), Canadian Interests: -11.4% (-7.5%), Other IMP Participants -47.7% (105.2%), Not stated -39.8% (-43.4%)
      • IMP by occupation code: not meaningful given only about 10 percent have NOC codes
    • TRs/TFWP: Stable from 11,860 in October to 11,540. November year-over-year change (change from 2022): Caregivers 12.2% (19.6%), Agriculture -1.1% (-20.0%) and Other LMIA 6.3% (32.6%).
    • TRs by occupation code (September, updated quarterly): 39.8% low-wage (D), year-over-year (D) change (change from 2022) 14.0% (157.4%)
  • Students: Decrease from 32,100 in October to 28,470 in November. November year-over-year change (change from 2023): All -3.1% (22.0%), post-secondary -1.4% (22.7%)
    • Applications: Decrease from 40,846 in October to 39,759 in November. November year-over-year change (change from 2021): -53.6% (-49.3%)
    • Web Get a study permit: Increase from 29,396 in October to 51,416 in November. November year-over-year change (change from 2022): -0.1% (-25.0%) (December data not released)
  • Asylum Claimants: Decrease from 14,155 in October to 12,590 in November. November year-over-year change (change from 2022): -22.9% (28.5%)
    • Irregular arrivals (Roxham Road etc): Increase from 62 in October to 79 in November. November year-over-year change (change from 2021): 21.5% (-97.9%).
  • Settlement Services (2023): Increase from 1,941,480 in 2022 to 2,960,330 in 2023 (most recent data, services, not unique clients). 2023 year-over-year (change from 2021): 52.5% (53.3%)
  • Citizenship: Stable from 26,082 in October to 25,234 in November. November year-over-year change (change from 2022): -28.9% (-29.1%)
    • Applications (2023): From 264,231 in 2022 to 317,538 in 2023. 2023 Year-over-year change (change from 2021): 20.2%% (36.3%)
  • Visitor Visas: Stable from 102,304 in October to 100,845 in November. November year-over-year change (change from 2022): -34.2% (-24.9%).

https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/canadian-immigration-tracker-key-slides-november-2024-pdf/274868539

Filed under Citizenship, Immigration Tagged with , ,

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

2025/01/14 Leave a comment

More on C-71 and impact of prorogation:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

However, both are problematic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Filed under C-71, Citizenship Tagged with ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →