Canada reportedly preparing to evacuate 45,000 citizens from Lebanon amid war fears

2024/06/24 Leave a comment

Echoes of 2006. Will be interesting how a possible (likely?) evacuation would affect consideration of C-71 given likely numbers of perceived “Canadians of convenience” that provoked, under the Conservative government, the first generation limit:

Canada is preparing a massive evacuation of its citizens from Lebanon should a full-scale war break out between Israel and Hezbollah, Channel 12 reports.

The report quotes from a conversation held Friday between Foreign Minister Israel Katz and his Canadian counterpart Mélanie Joly.

The report says the conversation was tense and that Joly told Katz that the Canadian military was drawing up plans to evacuate 45,000 people from Lebanon.

Katz reportedly urged Ottawa to put pressure on Hezbollah’s Iranian backers to reign in the terror group.

There was no official read out of the conversation.

However, Katz later posted on X: “Israel cannot allow the Hezbollah terror organization to continue attacking its territory and citizens, and soon we will make the necessary decisions. The free world must unconditionally stand with Israel in its war against the axis of evil led by Iran and extremist Islam.”

Source: Canada reportedly preparing to evacuate 45,000 citizens from Lebanon amid war fears

Filed under C-71, Citizenship Tagged with ,

Court grants Trudeau government extension to fix ‘lost Canadians’ citizenship rules — with a catch (3 slightly different reports)

2024/06/22 Leave a comment

Appears that Justice Akbarali is being activist, not only in her interpretation citizenship rights but also with respect to setting an unreasonably short timeline for compliance.

She certainly would know that developing, passing and implementing legislation takes longer than six months and a month extension, over the summer months when Parliament sitting, is meaningless. Given the possibly large numbers involved and the policy and operational implications (judges tend to underestimate the latter), thorough review will be needed.

The numbers we have are provided that the advocates indicate a likely upper limit of 1.5 million, not negligible in terms of impacts. It is striking that IRCC has not yet provided its estimates of the number of persons affected, including those of women first-generation born abroad of child bearing age (estimates of the total number of expatriates are imprecise with StatsCan settling on 4 million).

Of course, like so many of these initiatives, there is an assumption than many, if not most, “lost Canadians” want to be “found.” Whenever the government makes a change to address “lost Canadians” or expand voting rights to expatriates, the actual numbers are relatively small as seen through citizenship proofs and expatriate voting rights.

More to come over coming months:

Starting with The Star:

The federal government has been given a last-minute reprieve to roll out a new law to restore the citizenship rights of “lost Canadians” born outside Canada.

That’s despite its failure to have a proper plan in place to address urgent cases affected by the delay.

Six months ago, Ottawa was ordered by an Ontario court to repeal what’s known as the “second-generation cut-off” rule and amend the current Citizenship Act by June 20, after a judge ruled it’s unconstitutional for Canada to deny automatic citizenship to children born abroad because their parents also happened to be born overseas.

On Wednesday, at the eleventh hour, the government pleaded for a six-month extension of the deadline, arguing that it had already introduced an amendment bill, C-71, in May to confer citizenship to those affected by the current law and address the legislative gaps to ensure others won’t fall through the cracks in the future.

Officials contended that the legislative process takes time and it is a “complex undertaking” that would involve preparing training materials for immigration staff, forms, website pages and co-ordination, among other things.

However, Judge Jasmine Akbarali only agreed to grant the government seven weeks’ relief, until she can reassess the progress made to create an interim plan to handle urgent citizenship requests by lost Canadians and to push for the passage of Bill C-71 by Dec. 19.

In reaching her decision, the judge said she had to balance the government’s need to properly fix the problems and the hardship affected Canadians will continue to suffer as a result of the delay.

“While it has been working on the legislation, the respondent has not proceeded with any sense of urgency to rectify the unconstitutional aspects of the legislation,” Akbarali in her decision released Wednesday evening. 

“It does not propose an effective mechanism to address the hardship that a further six-month suspension will cause to people whose constitutional rights are being violated day after day.”

An estimated 170,000 women in the first generation born abroad, who are in the age range at which people often choose to start families, are still being affected by the current law when making those important life decisions, the judge noted.

In chiding the government for its tardiness, the court referred to a couple of other bills that officials successfully pushed through recently, including Bill C-62, an Act respecting medical assistance in dying, which went from first reading to royal assent within the month of February.

“There is no explanation as to why this bill is languishing since May 23, 2024, when the government was aware of the date on which the suspended declaration of invalidity was set to expire,” said Akbarali.

“The unconstitutional law remains on the books, and continues to interfere with the Charter rights of Canadians to make important decisions about where to live, and where and when to have children, all of which have implications for the financial, physical and emotional health of the people involved.”

She said it’s insufficient for the government to grant citizenship to lost Canadians at the immigration minister’s discretion, as proposed, during the interim before the amended bill is enacted, supposedly by Dec. 19, because that process is “ineffective, and also poorly communicated.”

Toronto lawyer Sujit Choudhry, who represented the six lost Canadian families in the constitutional challenge, said his clients are pleased with the court decision, which also included granting three of the families the sought-after citizenship and $35,064.47 in partial indemnity costs.

“They now have the full benefit of the court’s judgment,” Choudhry said in an interview. “They are not second-class citizens anymore. It was very important for them that there be accountability. They led this fight not just for themselves, but for everyone like them.”

The parties are to reconvene on Aug. 1 to hear the government’s updates on its interim plan to deal with pending citizenship applications of lost Canadians and steps to pass Bill C-71 by the proposed extended deadline. The court will then make a final decision on the full extension to Dec. 19.

The “second generation” cut-off against Canadians born abroad was first introduced by the then Conservative government, which also removed the so-called “connection test” for these descendants to reclaim citizenship based on their ties to Canada. Despite several amendments to the act, there remain many lost Canadians.

Source: Court grants Trudeau government extension to fix ‘lost Canadians’ citizenship rules — with a catch

CBC:

So-called “lost Canadians” will have to wait longer to obtain their right to citizenship now that a court has granted the federal government more time to fix legislation it ruled was unconstitutional.

The courts initially gave the federal government until today to replace legislation that prevents Canadians born abroad from passing on their citizenship to children also born abroad.

In May, the Liberals introduced Bill C-71, which introduced sweeping changes to Canada’s citizenship laws. The government says the legislation addresses the concerns of the court.

But the Liberals did not get the bill through the House of Commons before it rose for the summer on Wednesday. MPs will not return to the Commons until mid-September.

In handing down the extension to Aug. 9 on Wednesday, Ontario Superior Court Justice Jasmine Akbarali slammed the pace of the legislation’s passage through the House. She noted that other pieces of government legislation moved swiftly to the Senate, while a citizenship bill responding to the violation of a legal right still remains in its early stages.

“I am troubled by the fact that, after taking over five months to introduce Bill C-71, in the almost-month that has passed since then, the bill has not reached second reading,” Akbarali said.

“There is no explanation as to why this bill has been languishing since May 23, 2024, when the government was aware of the date on which the suspended declaration of invalidity was set to expire.”

In the meantime, Akbarali added, Canadians’ rights are being violated.

“The unconstitutional law remains on the books and continues to interfere with the Charter rights of Canadians to make important decisions about where to live, and where and when to have children, all of which have implications for the financial, physical and emotional health of the people involved,” the justice wrote.

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

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

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

In a previous ruling, Akbarali said the current law forces women in their reproductive years to choose between travel, study and career opportunities abroad, and passing citizenship on to their children.

Thousands of so-called “Lost Canadians” have lost their citizenship, and in some cases been deported, due to a complicated section of the Citizenship Act. Now, the federal government is trying to pass new legislation to prevent people from falling through the cracks.

In December, Ontario’s Superior Court struck down Canada’s old citizenship law, Bill C-37, which prevented parents born outside Canada from passing on their citizenship to children also born abroad. The court ruled that it violated their rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It gave the government six months to enact Charter-compliant legislation.

The Liberal government said in May its legislation to respond to the judgment, Bill C-71, would fix those problems and automatically confer citizenship rights on children born since 2009 once enacted.

In granting the extension, Justice Akbarali said the government would only have until Aug. 1 to present arguments on why she should consider another extension until Dec. 19. The judge ordered the government to file a plan to address the hardship experienced by parents under the existing law during the extended period and “ideally” file a report on the steps required to get the bill passed before mid-December.

Sujit Choudhry, the lawyer who fought the constitutional case for the families, called for these conditions. Choudhry estimates that the current law violates the rights of at least 1.48 million Canadians at home and living abroad.

Source: Court grants government another extension to fix unconstitutional citizenship law

CTV:

An unknown number of young people born abroad to Canadian parents could wait until at least December to be eligible for citizenship.

Last year, the Ontario Superior Court ordered Ottawa to reverse restrictions imposed by the previous Conservative government in 2009, which limited citizenship by descent to children born in Canada if their Canadian parents were born outside the country.

The court declared the 2009 change unconstitutional for creating two classes of citizens and gave Ottawa until June 19 to implement a solution. On Wednesday, the court granted the government’s request to extend that deadline to Aug. 9.

In a statement to CTVNews.ca, an Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) spokesperson explained there were conditions attached to the new Aug. 9 deadline.

“The Judge also ordered a hearing on August 1, 2024 to determine if an extension to December 2024 would be appropriate,” the IRCC spokesperson told CTVNews.ca. “She has asked to be presented prior to the hearing with a report explaining the progress made on Bill C-71 since May 23, 2024 ‘and ideally, intended next steps to pass the bill by December 19, 2024.'”

Bill C-71(opens in a new tab), An Act to Amend the Citizenship Act, was introduced in late May(opens in a new tab). If passed, citizenship would automatically be granted to anyone affected by the 2009 change. Going forward, Canadian citizens who were born abroad will also have to spend at least three years in the country before a foreign birth or adoption to be able to pass on citizenship rights to their children.

“There’s no doubt that Canadian citizenship is highly valued and recognized around the world,” Immigration Minister Marc Miller previously said. “We want citizenship to be fair, accessible, with clear and transparent rules.”

With the House of Commons adjourning for the summer on Wednesday(opens in a new tab), the bill is expected to remain on hold until members of Parliament resume legislative business in mid-September, likely necessitating another court extension.

“Many individuals who considered themselves Canadian were excluded from citizenship simply due to their place of birth,” Toronto-based immigration consultant Al Parsai told CTVNews.ca. “By declaring it unconstitutional, the court recognized the adverse impact on Canadian families and their ties to their heritage.”

The government has no idea how many so-called “Lost Canadians” are impacted. All are aged 15 and younger.

NDP immigration critic Jenny Kwan helped draft the bill alongside the Liberals. She attempted to push it through by asking for unanimous consent from MPs, but Conservatives voted against it twice.

“I’ve talked to family members who’ve been separated from their loved ones because of this unjust law that Conservatives brought in 15 years ago,” the Vancouver East NDP MP said last month(opens in a new tab). “I’ve talked to family members where their children are deemed stateless, lost in the system, because of this unjust, punitive, unconstitutional law.”

If the federal government is not given another court extension before Bill C-71 passes, it may be up to the immigration minister himself to decide individual citizenship cases.

“If it doesn’t come through we’re sort of in no man’s land,” Miller said before Wednesday’s court extension. “Basically, it’s my discretion deciding who’s Canadian or not. Obviously, that shouldn’t be up to the discretion of a minister.”

If the bill does pass, anyone affected by the 2009 change would be able to apply online for a Canadian citizenship certificate(opens in a new tab). The government also has a digital tool that can help you find out if you are Canadian(opens in a new tab).

Parsai expects to see a surge in citizenship applications, which could strain government resources.

“The Ontario Superior Court’s ruling in 2023 was a pivotal moment, acknowledging the unfairness of the 2009 policy,” Parsai said. “This change will be immensely positive for Canadians and their families, restoring their sense of belonging and legal recognition.”

Source: Canada’s new citizenship rules for kids born abroad delayed

Filed under C-71, Citizenship Tagged with , , ,

A new law will finally grant citizenship to ‘lost Canadians’. Are we ready for the consequences?

2024/06/19 Leave a comment

Good questions and the answer would appear to be no, judging by the lack of analysis of the possible impacts by the Minister. Like any changes in citizenship or immigration policies, persons can be expected to respond to any perceived incentives provided by the change and IRCC needs to present any analysis during parliamentary consideration of C-71, not the subsequent regulatory stage.

Past experience with responding to “lost Canadians” and expanding voting rights suggests that the number of “lost Canadians” who want to be “found” is small subset of the total expatriate population, particularly for those living in the USA. But given the increased diversity of Canadian expatriates, that may be changing:

Last week, faced with a court-imposed deadline, Immigration Minister Marc Miller introduced new legislation that would automatically give citizenship to people born outside of Canada to Canadian parents, as long as the parents have lived here for a cumulative 1,095 days before the child’s birth.

The legislation, Bill C-71, will correct the arbitrary creation of a generation of ”Lost Canadians”. Under the current Citizenship Act, subject to a few notable exceptions, a person born outside of Canada would only be a Canadian citizen if their parents were either born in Canada, or naturalized in Canada. If their parents were born outside of Canada and became a Canadian citizen through their own parents, they did not qualify for Canadian citizenship by descent.

A particular blind spot was border babies. For example, a mother in Point Roberts, Wash., may give birth in British Columbia, while a mother in Emerson, Man., might give birth in North Dakota, simply because it is the nearest hospital to her. If those mothers were born outside of Canada, their babies would not have had automatic Canadian citizenship. 

Unlike their Canadian counterparts, however, American parents in border communities do not have to worry about where they themselves were born. Under U.S. citizenship law, if either parent meets the prescribed residency requirements (five years with at least two years after the age of 14), their child will be American. While there is some disagreement with Canada’s adoption of a less burdensome cumulative 1,095 day rule, we see it as similar to the American law. Both legislation mirror the residency requirement for naturalization and ensure a substantial connection to the country is met.

While advocates are rightly celebrating this “monumental” change for cross-border families, as immigration lawyers we have mixed feelings in light of the current political environment. Will the Canadian public “open their arms” towards the potentially untold number of U.S. residents who can now claim Canadian citizenship?

Removing outdated values and addressing historic wrongs in citizenship law

As the Senate argued in 2007, the current Citizenship Act relies on past legislation, which was built on outdated values. For example, gender and marital status played a major role in determining who was or wasn’t Canadian. Bill C-71 is likely to be the first legislation that does not consider gender or marital status.

Bill C-71 also addresses racial discrimination in the Citizenship Act. Bill C-71, would for example rightfully restore citizenship to the descendants of Japanese-Canadians, who were interned and deported during the Second World War.

Bill C-71 would also restore citizenship to those who lost it because they did know they had to meet retention requirements by their 28th birthday. 

These changes are long overdue. The Citizenship Act historic issues were first identified by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1997.

All these above changes are positive as they add greater coherence to the law, bridging past shortcomings with a forward-looking lens to safeguarding Canadian citizenship.

Encouraging Canadians to Return to Home

Bill C-71 could play a role in encouraging Canadian families with young children born abroad to return home. A government study found that over half of Canadians abroad are citizens by descent. Bill C-71 would allow these families to avoid the difficult processes for sponsoring their children as permanent residents because they would automatically become Canadian citizens.

It is also important to contextualize that the citizenship rules that created “Lost Canadians” was itself the product of resistance within Canada to recognizing citizens abroad attempting to return home — in particular, a public backlash to the government evacuating Canadian citizens from Lebanon in 2006. It’s important to recognize that this new legislation comes at a time when anti-immigration sentiment is on the rise and to interrogate the 180-degree motivation shift.

While much of the support for these changes has come from U.S. cross border families, we have noticed the brunt of the online discussion about the potential law change surrounding Asian birth tourism and allegations of elaborate family schemes for descendants to claim a right to Canadian citizenship.

The reality is the flood gates might open to more Canadian citizens — but the bulk will not come from Asia. Based on our reading of this current bill, anyone who descends from a person that was born or naturalized in Canada before this bill comes into force would qualify for Canadian citizenship and the vast majority of those people are American.

This can be supported not just by anecdotal data from our own practices, but also statistics. According to the Vermont Historical Society, 20 per cent New Englanders are of French Canadian descent. This is only descended from French Canadians; The fact is we do not know how many Canadians of descent live in the United States.

Considering the more affordable post-secondary tuition in Canada for citizens (including those by descent), and our more generous social programs, such as publicly funded health care, this may become a pull factor for Americans, both young and old, to claim Canadian citizenship — in fact one of the reasons Americans claim their Canadian citizenship.

Our recommendation is that, notwithstanding political pressure to possibly pass this bill quickly, the government takes a collaborative approach that consensus-builds, not consensus-divides on the topic of citizenship. Future work must centre both ameliorating historical wrong but also strengthening a conception of Canadian citizenship that reflects modern day transnationalism beyond unpredictable shifts in domestic political values.

This process may result in amendments that impose some limits, or add additional residence obligations for Canadian citizenship, but it is one we hope will give Canada coherent and predictable legislation on who is a Canadian citizen.

Amandeep Hayer and Will Tao are immigration lawyers based in British Columbia.

Source: A new law will finally grant citizenship to ‘lost Canadians’. Are we ready for the consequences?

Filed under C-71 Tagged with ,

IRCC introduces interim measure allowing some foreign nationals to gain Canadian citizenship faster

2024/06/19 Leave a comment

Pending legislative approval of C-71, the tabled bill that essentially abolishes the first generation limit, and responding to the timeline of the court.

IRCC’s new measure applies to those who have applied for proof of citizenshipunder urgent processing, and may be impacted by the FGL (First Generation Limit) by descent. Specifically, it will apply in either of the following scenarios:

  • Scenario One: The applicant has submitted a proof of citizenship application that would be subject to the FGL rule change, and has requested urgent processing in accordance with urgent processing criteria; or
  • Scenario Two: The applicant has a proof of application in process and IRCC has identified that the application is impacted by the FGL rule. The application had previously been de-prioritized until new rules come into effect, but the applicant has since requested urgent processing.

In both of these circumstances IRCC will respond to and review the request, in addition to verifying an applicant’s eligibility for urgent processing.

If an applicant is eligible, they will receive a notice from IRCC that the FGL rule is still currently enforced. The department will also give eligible applicants the option to request a “discretionary grant of citizenship”* with relevant information for how to apply for this grant.

If an applicant chooses to apply for this grant, their application will be processed by the Immigration Minister, or delegated decision maker. If the application satisfies necessary criteria, applicants can be granted citizenship.

*The Immigration Minister has the authority under Canadian law to grant citizenship to individuals in special or exceptional cases.

Who is eligible for urgent processing?

IRCC allows three groups of citizenship certificate (a crucial document in proving one’s Canadian citizenship) applicants to apply for urgent processing.

To be eligible for urgent processing of a citizenship certificate, applicants are required to prove they need urgent processing for one of the following three reasons:

  • The applicant needs to access benefits, including but not limited to: a pension, health care, or their Social Insurance Number (SIN)
  • The applicant needs to prove they are a Canadian citizen to get a job
  • The applicant needs to travel to or from Canada due to a death or serious illness in their family

Note: IRCC clarifies that the department cannot guarantee applicants will receive their citizenship certificate on time, even if they qualify for urgent processing.

Source: IRCC introduces interim measure allowing some foreign nationals to gain Canadian citizenship faster

Filed under C-71, Citizenship Tagged with

What struck my attention when away

2024/06/18 Leave a comment

Immigration

Century Initiative’s 100 million population goal by year 2100 was meant to be provocative – and isn’t a target – CEO says

Appears to be flailing around given that their fundamental arguments appear to have failed:

Ms. Lalande said the 100 million population goal for 2100 “was meant to be provocative and bold” and to “spark an economic recharge.” The ultimate objective isn’t to see a specific population number by 2100, she said, but for Canada to be strategic and thoughtful in planning for growth.

“We don’t believe that growth should happen at all costs,” she said, saying the 100 million figure “was meant to galvanize the conversation and to spark debate and discussion of what the country could be and how we need to get there.”

But she warned against curtailing immigration, saying “that approach would result in an aging, less-skilled work force, less foreign investment, less diversity and less influence” globally.

Source: Century Initiative’s 100 million population goal by year 2100 was meant to be provocative – and isn’t a target – CEO says

Government criticized for limiting immigration sponsorships to four-year-old list

Never possible to satisfy demand:

Immigrants who came to Canada with the hope that their parents or grandparents could one day join them say they feel cheated after the federal government opened a sponsorship lottery this month drawing from a four-year-old list of applicants.

They are upset because Ottawa decided to allow around 30,000 sponsorships this year, but excluded applicants from joining the program if they had not registered an interest in 2020.

Some told The Globe and Mail that if they can’t successfully sponsor their relatives at some point, they may have to leave this country themselves to take care of them.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) is sending out 35,700 randomly selected invitations to Canadian citizens and permanent residents to apply for the Parents and Grandparents Program (PGP).

The invitations are drawn from a list of 200,000 people who expressed an interest in sponsoring their relatives in 2020.

Not everyone who receives an invitation to apply will submit a PGP application; however, IRCC said it ultimately expects around 32,000 grandparents and parents to qualify for permanent residence….

Source: Government criticized for limiting immigration sponsorships to four-year-old list

Caregivers from abroad to be given permanent residence on arrival under new pilot programs

Of note, addressing some past concerns:

The pilots, which are enhanced versions of two programs set to expire on June 17, will put qualified nannies, child-care and home-support workers on a fast track to settling in Canada.

Caregivers working for organizations that provide temporary or part-time care for people who are semi-independent or recovering from an injury or illness will also qualify under the new programs, which Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) said will later become permanent.

Canada will admit more than 15,000 caregivers as permanent residents in the next two years, as part of Canada’s overall immigration targets, according to IRCC.

“Caregivers play a critical role in supporting Canadian families, and our programs need to reflect their invaluable contributions,” Mr. Miller said in a statement….

Source: Caregivers from abroad to be given permanent residence on arrival under new pilot programs

Canada needs an Immigrant Bill of Rights

Hard to see how adding another layer will necessarily improve processing and client service compared to addressing systemic issues:

This is why in a new report entitled Let’s Clean Up Our Act, the Canadian Immigration Lawyers Association (CILA) encourages the federal government to introduce an Immigrant Bill of Rights to provide newcomers with greater protection and an enhanced experience. 

We also believe the Immigrant Bill of Rights should be complemented by introducing an Ombudsperson for Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada (IRCC), and the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA). 

These recommendations are far from novel or controversial.  

Numerous federal departments and agencies already have a bill of rights and/or ombudspersons.  

Source: Canada needs an Immigrant Bill of Rights

Tasha Kheiriddin: Brace for a possible tsunami of illegal migrants if Trump is re-elected

So almost a dedicated stream and pathway to citizenship? But that would require Canadian residency for at least three years, not “just being on our side:”

So what can Canada do that is positive? Apart from planning for these specific eventualities, Heyman suggests that we process as many Americans as possible for the equivalent of an American H1 Visa to Canada — not necessarily to live here, but to have a Canadian passport in their pocket and advocate for our country south of the border. “You’ve got a generational opportunity to get the top talent, people with means and skills, on your side — and possibly into your country,” Heyman said. A silver lining, perhaps, but the tsunami still looms.

Source: Tasha Kheiriddin: Brace for a possible tsunami of illegal migrants if Trump is re-elected

Rioux | «It’s the immigration, stupid!»

On the results and aftermath of the European Parliament elections and the political shakeout in France:

Son coup de tête a déjà provoqué le rassemblement de la gauche autour de son aile la plus radicale (La France insoumise) qui se complaît dans une forme de romantisme révolutionnaire flirtant avec l’antisémitisme et les appels à la violence. À droite, il a accéléré l’éclatement des Républicains, dont les jours étaient comptés, au profit d’un RN portant certes des revendications partagées par la majorité des Français, mais sans expérience ni cadres chevronnés et dont le programme économique est pour le moins boiteux.

Derrière l’apparence du combat des extrêmes, ne serions-nous pas en train de découvrir le nouveau visage de ce que sont tout simplement devenues, après une période d’effacement, la gauche et la droite ? Pour le dire simplement, la nouvelle gauche est aujourd’hui plutôt multiculturelle, wokiste et décoloniale. La nouvelle droite, plutôt nationaliste, souverainiste et conservatrice.

Dans la fureur et le chaos, nous assistons non seulement au retour de l’opposition entre droite et gauche, mais peut-être aussi de l’alternance sans laquelle aucune démocratie ne saurait survivre.

Source: Chronique | «It’s the immigration, stupid!»

Antisemitism, Israel Hamas war

Abella: What happened to the legacy of Nuremberg and the liberal democratic values we fought the Second World War to protect?

Well worth reading:

To paraphrase Martin Luther King, the arc of the moral universe may be long, but it does not always bend towards justice. And that means that too many children will never get to grow up, period – let alone in a moral universe that bends toward justice and the just rule of law.

I used to see the arc of my own life bending assertively from Nuremberg to ever-widening spheres of justice, but in this unrelenting climate of hate, I feel the hopeful arc turning into a menacing circle.

We need to stop yelling at each other and start listening, so that we can reclaim ownership of the compassionate liberal democratic values we fought the Second World War to protect, and to put humanity back in charge by replacing global hate with global hope.

My life started in a country where there had been no democracy, no rights, no justice. It instilled a passionate belief in me that those of us lucky enough to be alive and free have a particular duty to our children to do everything possible to make the world safer for them than it was for their parents and grandparents, so that all children, regardless of race, religion or gender, can wear their identities with pride, in dignity, and in peace.

Source: What happened to the legacy of Nuremberg and the liberal democratic values we fought the Second World War to protect?

Regg Cohn: Doug Ford isn’t the only one who has fumbled on antisemitism

Also well worth reading by those who have no answers to these questions:

To be sure, critics of Israel — of which I am one — are not necessarily anti-Israeli (or anti-Jewish). But a good many are so adamantly opposed to the existence of the state of Israel, for reasons of history or bigotry, that you have to ask:

Where would those millions of Jews go? Back to Poland, as some like to taunt? Here to Canada, where they feel increasingly besieged? Stay where they are in a single state where “Palestine shall be free, from the river to the sea,” subsuming and consuming the Jewish state?

Israel is guilty of many sins during its long decades of occupation, although neither side is blameless about missed opportunities. After the Oct. 7 Hamas massacre of more than 1,200 Jews and the taking of hostages, Israel’s overreaction and overreach transformed a just war of defence into a war without justifiable limits.

Source: Doug Ford isn’t the only one who has fumbled on antisemitism

Lederman: The banning of an Israeli-American graphic novelist shows how some arts organizations are rushing to judgment

Exclusion is not the answer except in extreme cases where it crosses into hate speech:

With Israel and Hamas at war, there has been so much screaming at one another, across a widening divide. What could be accomplished by having actual conversations?

This isn’t the only instance of selective targeting of Israeli, Jewish or Palestinian artists by arts organizations. With festival and awards season approaching in the fall, there is reason to fear more exclusions to come.

Source: The banning of an Israeli-American graphic novelist shows how some arts organizations are rushing to judgment

Citizenship

Mansour: Citizenship in the Multicultural State

Interesting evolution by Mansour compared to his earlier writings:

In conclusion, it might be said that the generation of 1968 was a pioneer generation in the making of a new political agenda that goes beyond the attachment to the state of which a citizen is a member. Canada has contributed to this agenda, internationalist and multicultural, through the social changes that have occurred in the years since its centenary anniversary. As a result, Canadians are in the midst of emerging new sensibilities that are more open to the world, more receptive of other cultures, more inclined to accepting international law and adjusting domestic statutes to that requirement. These changes render older political arrangements less meaningful in the twenty-first century.

Source: Citizenship in the Multicultural State

Foreign interference

Three article of interest of foreign interference and the shameful “witting” involvement of some MPs

‘Witting’ involvement changes the nature of foreign interference

NSICOP doesn’t name the parliamentarians who are witting participants in foreign interference. It raises a question about parliamentarians. It calls on the government to brief MPs about interference – and warns MPs to “reduce their vulnerabilities.”

And once again, it is another report telling the public that the Canadian government has not done enough to counter the threat of foreign interference. If anything, those warnings have grown louder.

This time, what a committee of parliamentarians has told us in clearer terms than ever is that the threat of interference from abroad includes participants here in Canada, inside Parliament, who have something to gain from dealing with foreign actors.

Source: ‘Witting’ involvement changes the nature of foreign interference

Coyne: We need to know the names of the traitor MPs, but don’t count on any of the parties to give them up

The Liberals’ tactic of deny, delay and deflect – first denying the allegations, then, when they can no longer be denied, denying they matter – has proved largely successful. Polls show that foreign interference ranks low on the public’s list of important issues. The Opposition is likely to take the hint. It was to their advantage to demand a public inquiry, so long as the government refused – and so long as they could be assured its findings would only stick to the government. But now? What’s in it for them?

For that matter, the same might apply to certain sections of the media: The report refers to Chinese officials “interfering with Canadian media content via direct engagement with Canadian media executives and journalists,” while a redacted passage cites “examples of the PRC paying to publish media articles without attribution.”

So if none of the parties is keen on turning over this rock, if law enforcement are unwilling and the media nervous – Mr. Dong’s lawsuit against Global News will have had a useful chilling effect – then the betting proposition has to be that nothing will happen. None of the MPs involved will be prosecuted, or named, or face consequences of any kind. And the public will shrug. Experience has taught them that, in this country, nobody ever faces consequences for this kind of thing.

Unless … unless a lone MP stands up in the House and names the names.

Source: We need to know the names of the traitor MPs, but don’t count on any of the parties to give them up

Yakabuski | L’ingérence étrangère et l’indifférence libérale

Tout au plus, la vice-première ministre, Chrystia Freeland, a-t-elle promis que les libéraux effectueraient « un suivi interne » dans la foulée du rapport. Comme son collègue à la Sécurité publique, elle n’a pas semblé désireuse d’aller au fond des choses. Est-ce parce que le caucus libéral compte beaucoup de députés issus des communautés culturelles qui entretiennent des relations étroites avec les représentants au Canada des gouvernements de leurs pays d’origine ? Certains de ces députés craignent, avec ou sans raison, une chasse aux sorcières dans la foulée du rapport McGuinty.

« La garantie que je peux donner aux Canadiens est que notre gouvernement prend très, très au sérieux l’ingérence étrangère », a réitéré cette semaine Mme Freeland. Or, la réaction du gouvernement au dernier rapport laisse, encore une fois, une impression contraire.

Source: Chronique | L’ingérence étrangère et l’indifférence libérale

Other

Hindutva ideology proved costly for India’s Narendra Modi

Of note:

The decade-long entrenchment of far-right ideologies in India, an over-focus on dividing Hindus and Muslims and on wealth generation for the rich eroded the country’s human rights record, judicial autonomy and press freedom.

That people with the least individual power were able to collectively push back against plans of the most powerful has rekindled the flame of democracy domestically and fanned hopes of resistance against tyranny globally.

Source: Hindutva ideology proved costly for India’s Narendra Modi

A Plea for Depth Over Dismissal

Agree:

To be clear, this article is not a plea for a return to scorecard history. Scorecard history is not a sound approach either. For, in the end, history is a qualitative discipline. Ranking prime ministers, or anyone else for that matter, is a silly exercise. Good deeds and bad deeds cannot be weighted and tallied up so that some final score can be determined. For that matter, categorizing deeds as good or bad in the first place flattens a great deal of complexity, like intentionality or unforeseen consequences, and it is precisely in that great universe of gray that real insights can be found. Insights into continuities between past and present, into how politics work in practice, and into the most accurate assessments of legacy. For the legacy of most leaders, much like the legacy of the policy of multiculturalism, will be neither entirely beneficial nor detrimental. But through a rigorous, nuanced, and deep examination of the lives and legacies of politicians and their policies, we stand to learn much about our country’s past – and its present too.

Daniel R. Meister is a Banting Postdoctoral Fellow in the Department of Political Science at the University of New Brunswick. He is the author of The Racial Mosaic (MQUP 2021).

Source: A Plea for Depth Over Dismissal

Filed under Citizenship, Immigration, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Jamie Sarkonak: Liberals water down citizenship for grandkids of convenience Canadians

2024/06/01 Leave a comment

While there is a diversity of perspectives among right leaning media, Sarkonak represents the consensus:

…Applying the court’s logic to any other situation reveals the absurdity of it all. If withholding citizenship from Canadian spawn two generations removed from home is discrimination, why not three? Four? And if any rule somehow can be perceived by a judge to reinforce a negative stereotype, what else violates equality rights?

Any reasonable government would have appealed, but not our feds. This decision granted legalistic cover to hand out more passports Oprah-style, and a higher court may not have been so generous.

The PR campaign to advance C-71 has taken care to focus on the saddest, most sympathetic stories that can be found: the cases of Type-A parents whose children have high “Canadian-ness” — speak our language, participate in our culture, share our values — but can’t, for whatever administrative reasons, obtain citizenship. These individual cases could be resolved through ministerial intervention today by Miller, which he knows and admits, but his government wants a rule so broad to include all.

On the other hand, there are others who barely have a Canadian connection at generation zero. Some are passport babies, whose mothers travelled to Canada for the purpose of obtaining citizenship for their children. According to Canadian Institute for Health Information data, compiled by analyst Andrew Griffiths for Policy Options magazine, there have been more than 40,000 of such births from 2010 to 2022.

Others have obtained Canadian privileges but have returned home. This was especially apparent in 2006, when the Lebanon civil war broke out that July. Some 40,000 people in Lebanon were registered with the Canadian embassy at the time, and $94 million was spent to evacuate about 14,000 of them to Canada; by September, the government estimated that 7,000 of those evacuees had returned to Lebanon, providing the catalyst for the Harper government to tighten citizenship rules in the first place.

New conflicts shake out new numbers. After fighting erupted in Sudan last year, prompting Canada to evacuate 175 Canadian citizens and permanent residents, Post columnist John Ivison spoke with a government source who estimated that up to half of the evacuees were “refugees who were granted status in Canada and then returned to Sudan, with some continuing to claim welfare and child benefits.”

“Most of these people have been living in Sudan for years,” said the source. “Sometimes they never really lived in Canada and don’t speak English or French.”

And who knows what the tally in Gaza is; in November, the foreign affairs department estimated that 600 Canadians, permanent residents and family members were in the strip. Some of these no doubt include aid workers, but by news reports, they also include young families who are clearly being raised intentionally abroad.

Those children can grow up elsewhere, without learning any English or French, without becoming attuned to our ways of life, our common sense of right and wrong; without ever paying Canadian taxes. Without giving anything in return, they can turn to the Canadian state for help — rescue, health care, and so on. The same can be said for their children, who only need to spend a few years in Canada to be eligible to pass on the same to their children.

The Liberal bill would ensure that the rest of Canada — those of us who have received the Canadian tradition and intend to preserve it for our children, who have a direct interest in our state’s success, who pay income taxes throughout our lives — could be obligated to support three whole generations of convenience-citizens as if they were our countrymen the whole time. It would do so under the guise of helping a narrow group of expats who can, at best, receive help from the minister, and, at worst, have their children apply for citizenship the normal way.

Source: Jamie Sarkonak: Liberals water down citizenship for grandkids of convenience Canadians

Filed under Birthright Citizenship, Citizenship Tagged with ,

Ukraine Introduces Citizenship Exams on Constitution and History

2024/06/01 Leave a comment

Of note:

From now on, individuals seeking Ukrainian citizenship must pass exams on the fundamentals of the Constitution of Ukraine and Ukrainian history. The Ministry of Education and Science reported this following a government meeting.

This decision was made by the Government and applies to:

  • foreigners;
  • stateless persons;
  • those who have acquired citizenship but have the right to take the exam within two years (this is due to deferment related to military service under contract, outstanding services to Ukraine, etc.).

Importantly, the implementation of the exams requires further adoption and implementation of a series of orders and provisions, organizational measures; currently, only a fundamental decision has been made.

To register, it is necessary to create an electronic account and submit an application electronically; a detailed algorithm will be published later.

The exam will consist of:

  • 20 questions on the fundamentals of the Constitution of Ukraine;
  • 25 questions on Ukrainian history.

To ensure transparency, the exam will be recorded on video.

Upon successful completion, participants will receive corresponding certificates.

Source: Ukraine Introduces Citizenship Exams on Constitution and History

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with

Jen Gerson: The right to disengage from the Omnicause

2024/05/31 Leave a comment

Valid commentary on the nature of meaningful citizenship. Certainly, political activism is also meaningful but needs to be sustained, well-thought out, and reasonably consistent between all the various injustices in the world and society:

…Look, I’m not saying that it’s wrong to engage in political and social activism. But I suspect we risk harming young people with still-forming identities when we encourage them to hyper-fixate on problems that they have neither the emotional maturity, life experience or practical skill sets to meaningfully address. 

Further, we’ve all fallen into the habit of reducing the concept of citizenship into a narrow axiom of activism, and stripping that word of the very social context that makes it effective. The purpose of an education can’t be to churn out an army of well-intentioned activists, throwing their bodies and minds at every passing injustice. Rather, we should be trying to create well-rounded citizens; people who meaningfully contribute to their local communities through their families, employment, volunteer work, spiritual lives, and hobbies. If activism of a more radical sort is one pillar of a rich and well-grounded social life, all the better, but to reduce the concept of “civic society” to activism at the expense of all the other pillars not only risks creating unbalanced individuals, it will, paradoxically, make such individuals far less effective at creating the social changes they wish to enact. 

Hence the choir quip. Or field hockey. Or drama. Pick an extra-curricular, really. (And I would, here, encourage all education ministers to appreciate the importance of activities too often and too easily cut in the budget for being considered frivolous or expendable. They’re not.)

Obviously, I’ve been stewing over this idea since the encampments demanding various universities divest from Israel began to pop up on North American campuses. Police also appeared to move rather quickly to arrest protestors who were beginning to set up an encampment on the road in front of Parliament this week. For a moment, I want to reserve my judgment on what appears, to me, to be a clear example of a highly contagious social phenomena. That is, I don’t want to turn this column into an opinion piece about whether or not these protestors are right or wrong about Palestine and Israel. In principle, I don’t really have a problem with protestors setting up encampments to make their point, except insofar as this form of protest has a tendency to create serious safety problems over time, both for the participants, and for the surrounding communities. 

Rather, I’d confine myself to observing that these protests and encampments appear to be only the latest manifestation of a series of highly charged political movements that rapidly attract followers, engage in mass shows of support, and then fizzle out and move on to the next seemingly existential crisis. 

Coastal Gas, MeToo, Black Lives Matter, trans issues, COVID, anti-COVID, Ukraine, now Israel. Others have recently labelled it “The Omnicause.” Social activism that is ever present. Ever urgent. Ever crucial. Put the morality of any specific issue aside for just a moment, and it’s hard to ignore the bandwagoner effect. This is absolutely no different to the kind of energy that gets stirred up when a city’s sports team hits the playoffs. 

I often get the impression not of a real commitment to a cause, but rather a desperate flailing for meaning and society by people who are doped by the certainty of being on the right side of history. Righteousness is a high, man. …

You have the right to deeply interrogate your own beliefs, emotions, and motives, and from that state of introspection, to decide how you wish to spend your limited time and energy. You have a right to confine yourselves to the things that serve you. 

You don’t have to do things that serve your peer group; you don’t have to be or appear to be virtuous; you don’t need to go along to get along, nor to acquire status; and you sure as hell don’t need to let your will be hijacked by social media algorithms that profit by fuelling perpetual social movements and outrage cycles. 

And if that process of conscious examination returns a positive result — “yes, this does actually matter. I do care about it” — then know that you will be radically more effective as an activist or political actor if you can raise awareness or cash or volunteers within established and durable social networks; again, family, school, employment, social hobbies, spiritual community, and the like. It’s great to attend a protest, but real, effective and durable change most often finds itself in these quiet and unglamorous foundations of real civil society. Developing a fulfilling and healthy life isn’t an abrogation of our duty to do good in the world. Rather, I think that it’s by being healthy and engaged people that we start to become the change we wish to see in the world around us. 

Source: Jen Gerson: The right to disengage from the Omnicause

Filed under Citizenship, Other Tagged with , ,

Canada set to lift restrictive citizenship by descent norms; Indian diaspora to benefit say experts

2024/05/27 Leave a comment

Seems like immigration source countries are looking at the implications of the change more than Canadian media: “open up the chain of citizenship without end…:”
 
…Pavan Dhillon, immigration attorney illustrates the first- generation limit. Mrs. A was born in India and was its former citizen. Subsequently after migrating, she acquired Canadian citizenship. On her return to India, she bore a child – ‘B’. Now, ‘B’ was eligible to be a Canadian citizen through descent. However, subsequently, ‘B’ (a Canadian citizen) could not under the first-generation limit rule pass on citizenship to her child (let’s name him C) if C was also born outside Canada.In other words, the first-generation which was born abroad, did not have the right to pass on citizenship by descent to the second-generation that was born abroad. This set of individuals, who were denied citizenship by descent are referred to as ‘Lost Canadians’.

According to the proposed amendment children born abroad to Canadians since 2009, would automatically be granted citizenship. A new substantial connection test would be created for those born outside Canada, after the new law comes into effect.

Those Indians who post enactment of the proposed legislation are eligible to become Canadian citizens and want to opt for it, will have to give up their Indian citizenship, as dual citizenship is not permitted.

The proposed provisions require that “Parents born abroad who have or adopt children also born outside Canada will need to have spent at least 1,095 cumulative days of physical presence in Canada prior to the birth or adoption of their child to pass on citizenship”.

Ken Nickel-Lane, founder of an immigration services firm , told TOI, “This announcement, at least on initial reading looks like it will open up the chain of citizenship without end as long as the parents have spent at least 1,095 cumulative days (approximately three years) of physical presence in Canada prior to the birth or adoption of their child to pass on citizenship. So, this could be very significant to a large group of individuals worldwide, notably Indian Nationals given that they are our largest source of new Canadians.”

However, it could be another immigration hot issue, as in some quarters it may be perceived that the floodgates to a wider pool of new immigrants have been opened, adds Nickel-Lane.

“The proposed legislation intends to ensure that Canadians who have substantial ties to Canada are not limited in their ability to pass on their citizenship to their children. The new legislation will greatly benefit the diaspora with significant ties to Canada,” states Dhillon .

Minister Miller summed up, “The current rules generally restrict citizenship by descent to the first generation, excluding some people who have a genuine connection to Canada. This has unacceptable consequences for families and impacts life choices, such as where individuals may choose to live, work, study, or even where to have children and raise a family. These changes aim to be inclusive and protect the value of Canadian citizenship, as we are committed to making the citizenship process as fair and transparent as possible.”

Canada’s immigration agency has stated that if the bill passes in Parliament and receives royal assent, it will work as quickly as possible to implement these changes and will provide more information for eligible individuals on its website.

Source: Canada set to lift restrictive citizenship by descent norms; Indian diaspora to benefit say experts

Some coverage as well in the Nigerian press but with limited analysis by Daniel Béland: Canada restores citizenship rights to “lost Canadians”

Filed under C-71, Citizenship Tagged with ,

Lilley: Trudeau extending Canadian citizenship to grandchildren and illegals

2024/05/27 Leave a comment

Different take from Lilley in the Toronto Sun than Selley in the National Post. Agree with Lilley that there are alternative methods such as greater use of ministerial discretion for hardship and statelessness cases, rather than casting a broader net:

….On the issue of extending birthright citizenship, the Liberals made it sound like they had no choice, blaming a court decision last December. The truth is, it was a lower court ruling they didn’t appeal because as they stated clearly in their news release they liked it.

“The Government of Canada did not appeal the ruling because we agree that the law has unacceptable consequences for Canadians whose children were born outside the country,” the news release stated.

The court ruling was in response to a number of families who challenged a law which stated that you could only pass on citizenship to a Canadian born outside of the country by one generation. With this change, grandchildren of Canadian citizens will be extended full Canadian citizenship.

This isn’t standard practice in the United States, Britain, France, Italy or a number of peer countries, which with rare exception cap passing on citizenship to the first generation born outside of the country.

Yet when a number of families, some with stories similar to mine, challenged Canada’s citizenship laws, Justice Jasmine Akbarali found the law to be unconstitutional. In her ruling she found that the law violated section 6 mobility rights and section 15 equality rights.

In one of the cases, two Canadians who had moved to Switzerland to work and had a child while there, sued in the off chance that in the future their daughter also moves abroad and has a family that they could pass on citizenship. That’s deciding a case and overturning a law based on a hypothetical, something judges love doing but isn’t a serious way to determine court cases.

In another case, a man born in the United States to a Canadian mother got married and started a family while living in Asia. He wanted to pass on the citizenship to his child, but the law didn’t allow it.

When he moved back to Canada with his family, his daughter applied for and was granted Canadian citizenship.

Bottom line is that in all the cases before Justice Akbarali there were solutions, like applying for citizenship, that didn’t involve watering down our rules. She decided the first generation cut off was arbitrary.

But if a one generation rule is arbitrary, what’s to say a future court won’t find the second generation cut off arbitrary. Parliament must choose a cut off at some point, otherwise, why have citizenship, why have borders, why have rights and privileges open to citizens and not others.

This was a bad court ruling and it has now been followed by a bad government policy. It extends automatic citizenship to people who have little to no connection to Canada and cheapens the value of our citizenship.

Knowing now that the Trudeau Liberals want to extend citizenship to people in the country illegally, their moves shouldn’t be surprising.

The only question left is how far will the Liberals go in terms of devaluing what it means to be Canadian?

Source: Trudeau extending Canadian citizenship to grandchildren and illegals

Filed under C-71, Citizenship Tagged with

← Older posts

Newer posts →