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 ,

Chris Selley: Liberals’ failed citizenship bill will soon be the Conservatives’ problem

2025/01/14 Leave a comment

Conservatives should simply introduce a bill similar to C-71 but requiring the residency requirement be met within a five-year period as per permanent residents:

There is much for conservatives to celebrate about the death of the Liberals’ legislative agenda, which is one of the chief effects of proroguing Parliament: Every government bill in progress “cease(s) to exist,” as the House of Commons’ procedural website puts it, and would in theory have to start at square one once Parliament returns on March 24. In practice, of course, the only real order of business then will be bringing down the government. It is an ex-legislative agenda.

The death of Bill C-71, however, which would have amended the Citizenship Act with respect to so-called “second-generation-born-abroad” children of Canadian citizens, is potentially a serious problem. It’s at the very least a problem, and it’s one the Conservatives need a plan to solve starting on Day One.

I’ll try to explain the issue as simply as I can.

Once upon a time, Canadian citizenship could be passed down through the generations essentially forever: So long as you were a Canadian citizen, no matter how much time (if any) you had spent here, your children had an automatic birthright to citizenship. The Harper government changed the law in 2009: People who were born as Canadian citizens in other countries could no longer pass on citizenship to any of their children who were also born abroad.

The law has produced some maddening and very sad situations, which I have written about in the past. But most cases are probably more like my friends Tim and Emily’s — not disastrous, just arbitrary and pointless.

Tim and Emily were both born in Canada as Canadian citizens; both were raised and educated in Canada. They moved to Dubai for a few years to work, as tens of thousands of Canadians do, and had their daughter Tina there. Tina automatically became a Canadian citizen. They then moved back to Canada, where their son Mike was born. (These aren’t their real names.)

Were Mike to have a daughter in Dubai in the future, she would automatically be Canadian. Were Tina to have a daughter in Dubai in the future, she would not automatically be Canadian, because she would be the “second generation born abroad.”

(Bizarrely, Tina has lesser rights in this respect than a naturalized citizen. If you immigrate to Canada and become a citizen, the Citizenship Act considers you to have been born in Canada for the purposes of passing on citizenship.)

In December 2023, Justice Jasmine Akbarali of the Ontario Superior Court struck down this rule, which lives in a single section of the Citizenship Act, as unconstitutional. She gave the government six months to craft a legislative remedy.

That remedy was Bill C-71, which allowed people like Tina  to pass on citizenship to children born abroad so long as they could demonstrate a “substantial connection” to Canada — namely having spent 1,095 days in the country over the previous five years. It’s exactly what we require immigrants to demonstrate before they can receive citizenship. It seemed reasonable enough to constitutional lawyer Sujit Choudhry, who represented the applicants at the Ontario Superior Court.

“We thought that was fair. It was simple, it was equitable. It’s a rule that (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada) administers every day in relation to permanent residents who are naturalizing,” says Choudhry.

For some reason the Liberals decided to go much further. Most notably, Bill C-71 grants “citizenship by descent (to) all persons who were born outside Canada … to a parent who was a citizen” before the new law took effect. That’s an awful lot of people with the stroke of a pen — no one really knows how many; last month, the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated 115,000 — at a time when people want more control over immigration, not less. It also doesn’t cut off at the second generation: Third and fourth generations born abroad could receive citizenship if a parent could demonstrate this substantial connection.

The Liberals having lost any ability to govern, Justice Akbarali granted the government three extensions to her original six-month deadline. The third she granted “reluctantly,” emphasizing her displeasure at the government’s lack of “legislative diligence” but noting that “the interests of the public will be negatively affected if (her ruling) comes into force without replacement legislation in place.”

And there, for the Conservatives, is the rub. If the section of the Citizenship Act that Akbarali struck down simply disappears with nothing to replace it, we wouldn’t return to the status quo circa 2022. We would return to the status quo circa 2008: unlimited hereditary citizenship, which no one wants or is asking for.

“Allowing (my ruling) to take effect without replacement legislation would … result in … an unknowable number of people becoming automatic Canadian citizens,” Akbarali wrote.

That third extension expires on March 19, before Parliament could even theoretically get back to work on the file. In light of that, and of Akbarali’s previously stated concerns, odds are the government will ask for and receive another extension. But all that does is punt the ball to Pierre Poilievre’s first citizenship minister, who most certainly will not want to be seen opening the floodgates to any real or perceived “citizens of convenience.”

My impression of the Conservatives on this file is that they don’t want to be seen supporting what could be viewed as more generous citizenship laws. They want citizenship to have more value, not less, both practically and philosophically — and I’m all for that. But there is nothing remotely unpatriotic about working abroad for a few years, even if you happen to have been born abroad while your parents did the same. And it doesn’t bolster the value of citizenship to make life difficult for people who follow this very common life path.

The Liberals were most of the way to a perfectly reasonable remedy. The Conservatives should adopt the “substantial connection” test as their own, probably with a cutoff at the second generation, ditch the weird blanket citizenship-grant, pass it quickly and move on to tougher issues.

Source: Chris Selley: Liberals’ failed citizenship bill will soon be the Conservatives’ problem

Filed under C-71, Citizenship Tagged with

Sweden to Implement Stricter Checks on Citizenship Applicants

2025/01/13 Leave a comment

Of note:

KEY TAKEAWAYS

  • Sweden will tighten controls on those applying for citizenship.
  • The decision comes in a bid to enhance national security and prevent people who pose a security risk from obtaining citizenship in Sweden.
  • The Swedish Migration Board will take forceful measures to ensure that requirements in citizenship cases are maintained.

In a bid to prevent people who pose a security risk from becoming Swedish citizens, authorities in this country will further tighten controls on those who apply for citizenship.

The decision has been confirmed through a press release from the government of Sweden, Schengen.News reports.

Upon the government’s request, the Swedish Migration Board will take further and forceful measures to ensure that requirements in citizenship cases are maintained.

It is currently practically impossible to regain citizenship. This underlines the importance of never granting Swedish citizenship to people who may pose a threat to Swedish security.

Migration Minister Johan Forssell (M)

Tightened Measures to Enhance National Security

The Swedish Migration Agency announced stricter measures in October of last year for those wishing to obtain citizenship in this country.

Among the measures are the detection of potential security threats, as well as the control and implementation of a system for the revocation of residence permits and tightened ID controls.

As part of measures to enhance national security, Sweden notified the European Commission for further extension of controls at all air, sea, and land borders, which were scheduled to end on November 12, 2024, until May 11, 2025.

Serious threats to public policy and internal security posed by recent terrorism-related events and serious crime associated with an ongoing armed conflict in the organized and gang-related crime environment; all internal borders (land, air, and sea).

Sweden’s notification to the EU

Notable Increase in Rejection Rates

The Security Service of Sweden years ago said that the rejection rate of citizenship applications was approximately 100-180 cases per year for security reasons, while in 2023, the number was 756, and in 2024, 543.

Migration Minister Johan Forssell (M) said that Sweden is seeing a very sharp increase. He indicated that the new measures could require an applicant to appear in person for identification and that oral investigations can be conducted more often.

It happens very rarely these days. If you do that, you get a lot more information. If you have a person in front of you, you can ask counter-questions and check a story.

Migration Minister Johan Forssell (M)

More Than 33,000 Granted Citizenships in 2024

Last year, 33,633 people acquired citizenship in Sweden, based on the figures provided by the Swedish Migration Agency.

The same source revealed that the top nationalities that obtained citizenship in 2024 were nationals of Syria (4,192) and Eritrea(3,466), followed by those from Afghanistan (2,519).

Source: Sweden to Implement Stricter Checks on Citizenship Applicants

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with

← Older posts

Newer posts →