Government could revoke citizenship of terror suspect, immigration minister says

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

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

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

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

He said Canadians “deserve answers” on the file.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But citizenship has become more politicized in recent years.

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

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

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

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

Gov’t Shelves Click-Box Oath

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

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

Source: Gov’t Shelves Click-Box Oath

Zelenskyy submits draft law on multiple citizenship to parliament

Of note:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Expected. Original deadline totally unreasonable given legislative processes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Court grants Ottawa extension to fix ‘lost Canadians’ citizenship rules

Original deadline was completely unrealistic given legislative process and flawed draft legislation having no time limit to meet residency requirements, unlike for Permanent Residents (1,095 days within 5 years):

Immigration officials will have until Dec. 19 to enact Bill C-71, which would automatically confer Canadian citizenship on people born abroad to a Canadian parent who is also born abroad before the changes take effect. Until then, lost Canadians can only try to reclaim their citizenship on an emergency basis.

At the same time, officials must also roll out a system for anyone born outside Canada subsequently to prove their foreign-born Canadian parent had a “substantial connection” with the country by meeting a residency requirement, which is 1,095 cumulative days of physical presence in Canada before the birth or adoption of their foreign-born child.

Friday’s decision by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice is likely going to end a three-year legal saga that started in 2021 by a group of 23 people from seven families who have been harmed by the loss of citizenship as a result of the so-called second generation cut-off rule introduced by Stephen Harper’s Conservative government in 2009.

They claimed the second generation cut-off rule — denying the first generation born abroad the right to pass on citizenship by descent outside Canada to the second generation born abroad — violated their Charter rights based on country of origin and sex.

In December, Judge Jasmine Akbarali ruled the second-generation citizenship cut-off rule was unconstitutional and ordered the federal government to repeal it and amend the Citizenship Act in six months.

In June, officials asked the court for a six-month extension of the deadline, saying they needed more time to pass a new bill to fix the problems. However, the court was not satisfied that the government recognized the urgency of a new law and asked officials to return Aug. 1 with an effective plan to address the hardship that any further delay might “cause people whose constitutional rights are being violated day after day.”

The court held a hearing this week and was presented submissions by the government of the updated procedure and communications to address “special cases of hardship,” as well as the new instructions created for affected citizenship applicants who have an urgent need for family reunification in Canada.

While the revised website and communication may not be perfect, the judge said they “adequately” allow potential applicants to navigate how they can seek a grant of citizenship in urgent cases that may involve a child’s statelessness or hardship in family reunification during the delay.

“The question for me is not whether the respondent could have designed a better process, or whether it is executing the process it has designed in a way that I would, in my discretion,” Akbarali wrote in a decision released Friday.

“The question is whether the process it has designed is good enough to sufficiently address the concerns about the hardship caused by the ongoing rights violations.”

The court heard that the government has made every effort to ensure the passage of Bill C-71 to amend the Citizenship Act, including technical briefings to MPs and to opposition immigration critics about the proposed changes. Immigration officials are also undertaking work to support the implementation of the new law as soon as it is passed.

But at the hearing, Sujit Choudhry, lawyer for the affected families, raised doubts over the government’s commitment to push through the legislative changes, arguing that Ottawa could have prioritized the passage of the bill, first introduced on May 23, before Parliament recessed for the summer on June 20.

Akbarali said she was satisfied with the plan outlined by the government and trusted that it will continue to take steps to advance the legislation.

“It has a tool box at its disposal that it can use to accelerate the passage of Bill C-71,” she wrote. “There is reason to conclude that the Bill will likely be adopted before Dec. 19, 2024.”

Akbarali also awarded $15,000 in indemnity costs to the litigants and credited them for holding the government to account.

Source: Court grants Ottawa extension to fix ‘lost Canadians’ citizenship rules

Immigrants frustrated at German citizenship bureaucracy

Join the club! Hopefully, a transition issue that will be addressed:

Maria Zadnepryanets loved Germany when she first arrived. The Russian software developer came to North Rhine-Westphalia a decade ago to study and was amazed by what she found — the freedoms, the public services, the educational opportunities. Now, after a four-year battle with Berlin bureaucracy, she feels like “a second-class citizen.”

“I came to Germany with a very naive idea of what it’s like to live here,” she told DW. “I thought that it’s a fair place. My expectation was that people are treated equally by the state, and this experience has given me a different message.”

In her first years in the country, she went out of her way to integrate: She learned German as quickly as she could, found a well-paying job in a modern sector where Germany needs workers and settled in the capital. In 2020, she submitted all her documents for naturalization in the Pankow district of Berlin — and then heard nothing, for months and then years.

After her emails were ignored, she consulted a lawyer, who suggested taking the Pankow office to court. But she decided against that, and in the fall of 2022 resorted to sending faxes to any official fax numbers she found — “to escalate my case,” as she put it. In response, the office asked for more documents, which she sent — again, there was no response.

“How I understood things with this whole citizenship story was: I do my part, I work, I contribute, I learn the language, I integrate, and then after a certain period of time I will be given citizenship,” she said. “It felt like I had done all these things, but that part of the deal was just not happening.”

‘German bureaucracy is not German at all’

Zadnepryanets isn’t the only one — many skilled workers in Germany have formed social media groups where they vent their anger about dealing with German bureaucracy. In late June, some mounted a protest outside the LEA office in Berlin calling for “a fair and transparent processing of citizenship applications.”

Many feel that only legal action will get them to the top of the pile — by filing a so-called “Untätigkeitsklage,” or “failure to act lawsuit,” against the immigration authorities. Such a complaint can be filed in Germany if an authority has not responded to an application for six months from the day on which the authority receives all the necessary documents.

One applicant who resorted to this was Imran Ahmed — he requested his name be changed for fear of prejudicing his case at the LEA, Berlin’s immigration and citizenship authority. “By this time I have lost trust in the fairness of the authorities, and am worried that I will be punished for sharing my story,” he told DW.

A Pakistani software engineer with a wife and young son, Ahmed submitted his application three years ago, when he had been in Germany for eight years, having earned a master’s degree in Darmstadt and found a good job. He heard nothing for 18 months, when he was asked to provide newer copies of the same documents. “Since then, blackout,” he said.

“I always wanted to come to Germany — the habits of German people were always something I could relate to: being on time, saying things in a straightforward way, being organized,” he said. “But German bureaucracy is not German at all. In my workplace and everywhere else I’ve been blessed with seeing German punctuality and organization, but whenever you deal with the bureaucracy, it feels like it comes from a Third World country.”

Frustrated and stressed by the long wait, which he said has led to health issues, Ahmed wrote to several members of the Berlin state parliament in January this year to ask how exactly the applications were being processed.

This year, the Berlin authorities switched systems in an effort to streamline naturalizations: By shifting the administration from the 12 municipal authorities to a centralized office for immigration and citizenship, the LEA. This authority replaced the previously required in-person interview with an online “quick check” to establish whether the applicant fulfilled the relevant conditions in terms of income, length of stay and language.

Laura Neugebauer of the Green Party was the only parliamentarian to reply to Ahmed’s questions. Her party, in opposition in Berlin, submitted an official information request, which revealed that it was “almost impossible” for the LEA to process the oldest applications first, as it was receiving the applications from the municipalities in batches in which the date of the application was not noted.

“This was mindboggling for me,” said Ahmed.

A mountain of old applications

A spokesperson for the LEA said he sympathized with people’s frustrations, but said “many customers do not understand” that the LEA had been left with a mountain of 40,000 old applications to deal with following the transition in January. The oldest of these, the spokesperson said, dated from 2005.

“They understandably only see their individual waiting time and their desire for naturalization and quite rightly put it in the foreground,” he said.

He also said it would actually be more inefficient to process the oldest applications first, since many of them may not be complete. “We are working through a mountain of work from several sides in order to naturalize as many people as possible as quickly as possible,” he said.

Adam (name changed), from Egypt, suspects those who applied for citizenship before the new digitized system was introduced this year are being disadvantaged. He, too, checked all the necessary boxes: A steady income (he works as an engineer for a major German telecom company), good German language skills, and long enough residency. After waiting over two years, he received his citizenship earlier this year only after filing an Untätigkeitsklage.

However, the citizenship applications for his wife and three children, two of whom were born in Germany, are now stuck somewhere in the LEA’s backlog. He has now filed more suits on their behalf, at a cost, he said, of over €3,000 ($3,600).

“There are people who applied online who are getting it in two or three months, and the people who applied offline, it’s ignored,” he said.

State aims to double naturalization rate

Berlin’s Interior Minister Iris Spranger said the state aims to double the number of naturalizations per year to 20,000. The LEA said it is on track to make that target for 2024, but it still had to work on those 40,000 old applications.

“This is a huge challenge, not least because the number of applications has increased significantly since the reform of the nationality law came into force,” the spokesperson told DW in an email.

Zadnepryanets is not impressed. “Those applications didn’t come from the air,” she said. “Why did these 40,000 applications happen? Who is responsible?”

And things are likely to slow down before they speed up, not least since naturalization laws were relaxed in June, which prompted a wave of new applications. According to the LEA, Berlin is currently receiving an average of 133 new citizenship applications every day and had already received over 25,000 this year. If that rate continues, the authorities can expect to receive over 48,000 new applications in 2024.

Despite this, local authority official Wiebke Gramm told the Berliner Morgenpost newspaper in January that the target for processing applications was now six months. That seems hopelessly ambitious to Zadnepryanets, who can’t understand why more people aren’t questioning the transparency and efficiency of the system.

“I’m just frightened of waiting another five years for anyone to touch my case,” she said. She too is looking to take legal action after all.

Source: Immigrants frustrated at German citizenship bureaucracy

Canada is immigrant friendly, but does it consider the national security angle?

My podcast with Phil Gurski discussing C-71 and its possible impact on citizenship policy, security and operations

Source: Canada is immigrant friendly, but does it consider the national security angle?