StatsCan – Source country matters: Citizenship trends among recent immigrants in Australia and Canada

2025/11/27 Leave a comment

Another informative study, highlighting common patterns and flagging divergence with respect to source countries. As I had noted earlier in work with the Institute for Canadian Citizenship, the prohibition of dual citizenship in source countries does not affect naturalization rates, whereas comparative growth rates do, as countries with more rapid growth lower the “value proposition” of Canadian citizenship:

…In both countries, the declines in immigrant citizenship rates were most pronounced among those from countries with substantial living-standard gains (e.g., China, with 82% growth in GDP per capita PPP, and India, Vietnam and the Philippines, with 39% to 56% growth) or enhanced passport strength (e.g., Colombia and China). These reductions contrast with minimal changes from nations showing slower growth (e.g., source countries with less than 15% GDPgains). Notably, source-country economic expansion (China’s 82% vs. Canada’s 6% and Australia’s 10%) appears strongly correlated with falling naturalization rates, suggesting that improved economic conditions in the source country reduce immigrant incentives for citizenship acquisition in the destination country.

Dual citizenship recognition had minimal influence on naturalization patterns. Source countries with similar living standards but differing dual citizenship policies showed similar citizenship rates. Declines in citizenship rates occurred across major origin countries despite stable dual citizenship policies during the study period. This consistency means that dual citizenship regulations in source countries were not a driver for the reduced naturalization rates in both Australia and Canada. Furthermore, some countries have made acquiring foreign citizenship less prohibitive, even while dual citizenship is not allowed. For instance, China has introduced reforms granting residency and certain rights to skilled overseas Chinese people since 2010. Likewise, India’s Overseas Citizenship of India program, established in 2005, offers eligible people of Indian origin various socioeconomic benefits, residency rights and long-term visas (Tan & Liu, 2024).

While source-country developments influenced citizenship trends, divergent declines between Australia and Canada suggest additional factors. Chinese, Colombian, Vietnamese and Pakistani immigrants showed steeper drops in Australia, while Filipinos, South Koreans, Britons, Americans, Sri Lankans, Malaysians, Iranians and Iraqis declined more in Canada. Notably, living standards changed very little in South Africa, Iran and Iraq, yet South African immigrants experienced about 12 percentage point decreases in both nations, whereas the rates for Iranian and Iraqi immigrants declined significantly in Canada but remained stable in Australia. 

These differences between the two countries in naturalization trends among immigrants from the same source nation indicate that other explanations are at play. These might include differences between the two countries in the modification of their policies and regulations regarding citizenship acquisition, differences in the characteristics of immigrants from the same source nation, and other unknown factors. 

In summary, this study analyzed changes in citizenship rates among recent immigrants from major source nations to Australia and Canada. By focusing on immigrants who have met residency requirements for naturalization, the analysis examined observed and adjusted citizenship rates—controlling for sociodemographic characteristics—across 14 major source-country groups. The findings revealed marked declines in citizenship uptake among recent immigrants in both countries over the 2011-to-2021 period. These declines were most pronounced among immigrants from countries that have seen significant improvements in living standards or passport strength, particularly China, India, Vietnam, the Philippines and Colombia. Dual citizenship policies in the source country appear to have little effect on naturalization trends. The magnitude of declines varied by country of destination and source country. 

This study demonstrates that immigrant naturalization patterns must be understood transnationally. Improvements in source-country economies, expanded global mobility options and enhanced passport values collectively reduce immigrant incentives for citizenship acquisition in destination countries. The observed declines suggest a partial decoupling of permanent residency from citizenship. Notably, while destination-country integration and citizenship policies can clearly affect naturalization patterns, they appear to be increasingly contingent on immigrants’ evolving motivations and source-country conditions. These findings challenge conventional integration models and underscore how dynamic global hierarchies and transnational migrant strategies can shape migration outcomes—in this case, the naturalization rate.

Source: Source country matters: Citizenship trends among recent immigrants in Australia and Canada

Filed under Citizenship, Dual Citizenship Tagged with , ,

Canada brings big changes to citizenship rules; India-born people to benefit

2025/11/25 Leave a comment

As expected, Indian media has covered the change and likely impact on Indo-Canadians. Representative sample:

…The legislation will benefit those many Canadians who live and raise families abroad for various reasons, yet maintain a strong connection to the country. The bill could benefit thousands of Indian-origin families.

This amendment to the Citizenship Act acknowledges their Canadian identity, ensuring they can pass it on to their children regardless of where they are born….

Source: Canada brings big changes to citizenship rules; India-born people to benefit

Some estimates of numbers:

Barrister Lovleen Gill says the number of Indian immigrants who will benefit is not very large, since most are naturalised citizens and already able to pass on citizenship to children born abroad. But for Indian-origin families affected by overseas maternity during short-term work assignments, the change could still help more than 10,000 households.

If your grandchild was born abroad before 2025, they will almost certainly become Canadian automatically now, closing a long-standing gap for “lost Indian-Canadians”.

Source: Canada’s new citizenship-by-descent law: Recognition of ‘Lost Canadians’, impact on Indians

Filed under C-3, Citizenship Tagged with

Lost Canadians bill gets royal assent after years of parliamentary battles

2025/11/21 4 Comments

Will be interesting to see the actual take-up and to that effect, IRCC needs to resume regular reporting of citizenship proofs. Dispiriting that the government did not accept the annual public reporting amendment which, unlike other proposed amendments by the Conservatives and Bloc, did not fundamentally change the Bill.

Have a data request into IRCC for any analysis of the 4,200 pending applications and will share when received:

A bill allowing Canadians born outside the country to pass on their citizenship to future generations born abroad gained royal assent on Thursday, after years of parliamentary and judicial battles. 

The legislation, which cleared its final parliamentary stage in the Senate Wednesday night, reinstates rights of Lost Canadians and reverses 2009 changes made to the Citizenship Act by Stephen Harper’s Conservative government, which stripped descendants of Canadians born abroad of their automatic right to citizenship. 

The government predicts tens of thousands of Lost Canadians could benefit from the change, but the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates about 115,000 could gain citizenship….

Source: Lost Canadians bill gets royal assent after years of parliamentary battles

Filed under C-3, Citizenship Tagged with

Feds helped push through citizenship for English soccer player in time to join Canadian squad

2025/11/20 Leave a comment

So let me get this straight.

While Minister Diab was making the case this Monday for passing C-3 quickly to avoid the absence of legislation that “it will open it up so that citizenship by descent will have no limit, and that’s exactly what I think a lot of people don’t want,” the government was fast tracking citizenship for a soccer player who apparently did not meeting the substantial connection case of having a parent who met the 1,095 day residency requirement.

In other words, skipping a generation and taking advantage of the legislative vacuum.

Depending on your perspective, clever or hypocritical move (latter in my opinion):

He is not the first soccer player to fly a flag of convenience in the run up to the World Cup, nor is he the only foreign-born player on Canada’s national soccer team. 

But few will have left it so close to their first match for Canada to take the citizenship oath. 

The Canadian national soccer team’s newest recruit is Alfie Jones, a Bristol-born defender who plays for second-tier English team Middlesborough. 

On Monday he took the citizenship oath in time to play for Canada on Tuesday in a pre-World Cup friendly match against Venezuela. 

Jones’s application for Canadian citizenship – made possible because he had an Alberta-born grandmother – was pushed through with the help of a government minister and a senior public servant in time for Tuesday’s kick off. …

Source: Feds helped push through citizenship for English soccer player in time to join Canadian squad

Filed under C-3, Citizenship Tagged with , ,

C-3 Citizenship by Descent: Senate Report Observations

2025/11/19 Leave a comment

The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology has the honour to present its

As expected, sailed through without amendments. Observations focussed on inter country adoptees (more of an recognition and identify issue than a practical one, as adoptees would have to live in the province of adoption and thus meet the residency test) and the need for modernization of the Citizenship Act. No concern about the operational impact and the data gaps (unfortunately, as expected):

SECOND REPORT

Your committee, to which was referred Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2025), has, in obedience to the order of reference of Thursday, November 6, 2025, examined the said bill and now reports the same without amendment but with certain observations, which are appended to this report.

Respectfully submitted,

ROSEMARY MOODIE

Chair

Observations to the second report of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology (Bill C-3)

Bill C-3 represents meaningful progress in addressing injustices faced by many “Lost Canadians.” However, your Committee notes a continuing gap affecting some intercountry adoptees: children born abroad, adopted by Canadian parents living in Canada, and brought into the country through a rigorous and highly regulated adoption process governed by provincial/territorial laws and international obligations, including the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption.

Your Committee therefore encourages the Government of Canada to undertake further study and consider targeted legislative reforms to ensure that all intercountry adoptees are treated equivalently to Canadian-born adopted children with respect to citizenship acquisition and transmission.

Your Committee observes that the Citizenship Act has become increasingly complex and difficult for Canadians to understand. Given the many piecemeal amendments over decades, the Act would benefit from comprehensive modernization, including the adoption of plain-language drafting techniques.

Simplifying the Act would enhance public understanding, reduce administrative burdens, and ensure that Canadians can more easily know and exercise their citizenship rights and responsibilities.

Your Committee notes that Bill C-3 resolves many long-standing inequities relating to Lost Canadians but does not fully address all categories of affected persons.

Your Committee therefore encourages further study to identify remaining gaps and to support the development of future legislation that ensures all Canadians — whether by birth, adoption, or descent — are treated with fairness, consistency, and dignity.

Source: C-3 Citizenship by Descent: Senate Report Observations

Filed under C-3, Citizenship Tagged with

Alberta tables bill to add citizenship mark, health-care numbers to driver’s licences

2025/11/19 Leave a comment

The post 9/11 enhanced drivers licences issued by some provinces included citizenship but were all discontinued by 2019. NEXUS has largely replaced the need. Alberta’s inclusion of citizenship markers will not, of course, be accepted by US authorities:

Alberta’s government has tabled legislation to add health-care numbers and mandatory citizenship markers to driver’s licences and identification cards.

The government had announced its plans to do so earlier this year, leading critics to say the province was creating privacy concerns rather than protecting against them. 

Critics at the time said someone’s citizenship status would become known in unnecessary situations, such as purchasing alcohol.

Service Alberta Minister Dale Nally told reporters Monday that having citizenship markers on driver’s licences and other forms of identification is only meant to streamline access to services.

“When you’re applying for future benefits from the government of Alberta, it’s going to make it easier for you because you’re not going to have to produce a birth certificate. It’s going to be on your driver’s licence,” said Nally.

“Let’s be clear, that’s what this is about. This is about making it easier for Albertans to access services.”

Nally, and Premier Danielle Smith, had previously said adding citizenship markers — which will read “CAN” — to licences and ID cards was also about preventing election fraud and routing out potentially fake health-care numbers, but the minister didn’t mention either concern on Monday….

Source: Alberta tables bill to add citizenship mark, health-care numbers to driver’s licences

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with ,

McMartin: How long must I live in Canada before I am no longer a colonist or settler?

2025/11/18 1 Comment

Valid concern. I am always amused by op-eds or articles by new arrivals who adopt this language, apparently not considering some of the hypocrisy involved:

…In the modern context — in the context in which William’s history and, by association, my history are now being refigured — William’s emigration to Canada was not the stuff of dire need, or daring in the face of events beyond his control, or the stuff of nation-building. There is no recognition, appreciation or accounting of William as an individual dealing with forces greater than himself.

But there is government-sanctioned shame and remorse.

And the indelible stain of trespass.

And the attendant name-calling of “colonialist,” “occupier,” and “settler” — all meant not only to demonize William’s and my history, but to delegitimize it. There are the performative apologies that, while purporting to recognize that this stage play or children’s Christmas concert is taking place on the unceded territory of the local First Nation, they really serve to remind us that all non-Indigenous history is one of thievery.

And I get it.

And to a great degree I agree, because the fury and anger of the Indigenous Peoples in Canada is justified. The history is undeniable. The deaths, displacement and Eurocentric supremacist racism suffered by the Indigenous Peoples took place, and is still taking place. And I cannot deny the fact that my family prospered under the rule of successive colonial and post-Confederation governments while those governments marginalized Indigenous populations.

But.

While enlightened initiatives like truth and reconciliation speak well of Canada’s attempt to heal long-standing wounds, there is the real danger here that reconciliation can quickly become resentment and retrenchment, as we have seen in the U.S. and in Europe, where hard-right political parties, fighting race and cultural wars, have ridden popular resentment to the top of the polls and formed governments….

Source: Opinion: How long must I live in Canada before I am no longer a colonist or settler?

Filed under Aboriginal, Citizenship Tagged with , ,

Senate urged to give children adopted from overseas the same citizenship rights as those born in Canada 

2025/11/17 Leave a comment

Perhaps I am a bit thick, but parents of foreign-born adoptees have to commit to raising their adopted child in Canada and thus would most likely meet the residency requirement of 1,095 days within a five-year period.  

The direct route to citizenship for adoptees was in response to parental pressure to have a faster route than PR sponsorship. But making that choice meant the adopted child was considered the first generation born abroad, like any naturally born child born abroad.

Appears more a matter of identity and convenience rather than fundamental practicalities to me:

….Two lawyers specializing in citizenship have submitted a briefing paper to the Senate committee, which will consider Bill C-3 this week. They argue that the bill should exempt children adopted from abroad from the substantial-connection test. 

The paper’s co-author, Toronto lawyer Sujit Choudhry, who filed the successful constitutional challenge to the Citizenship Act on behalf of Lost Canadian clients, said it is “deeply unfair to the families of these children to treat them differently than children adopted domestically.”

“It also violates Canada’s international treaty obligations and the Charter,” he said in an e-mail. 

Its other author, immigration lawyer Maureen Silcoff, suggested that unless Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada addresses the issue it could face a legal challenge. 

“IRCC is fully aware of the issue. Adoptive parents and MPs have been advocating on their behalf for years. We do not understand their reluctance to address this issue at this moment, when C-3 is before Parliament. Amending C-3 would avoid unnecessary litigation.”

Don Chapman, a leading advocate for Lost Canadians, who is giving evidence to the Senate committee this week, said, “I don’t want to leave any child behind.” 

But he expressed concern that amending the bill in the Senate may lead to it being held up when it returns to the Commons. …

Source: Senate urged to give children adopted from overseas the same citizenship rights as those born in Canada

Filed under C-3, Citizenship Tagged with , , ,

C-3 Citizenship: My Planned Remarks

2025/11/17 2 Comments

It will be a long SOCI meeting, as the Senate is holding all testimony in an over 4 hour session. Given the other witnesses, I will be the only contrarian voice on the need for a five-year limit to meet the residency requirement and the need for annual reporting of citizenship proofs issued under C-3 provisions (which the House immigration committee recommended but the Liberals and NDP reverted to the original bill at third reading).

CBA and CILA submissions focus largely on adoptions, advocating for birth date of adoptees, not the adoption date). CBA argues against requiring a consecutive residency requirement but doesn’t acknowledge that this can be cumulative within a five year period and would likely still be Charter compliant (allowing, to use their example, for Disneyland holidays).

Given the compressed timelines due to the court deadline, and the witness list, unlikely that SOCI will recommend and changes to C-3.

My planned remarks below:

C-3 Citizenship SOCI Remarks – FinalDownload

Link to meeting: Agenda

Filed under C-3, Citizenship, Multiculturalism Tagged with

C-3 Senate Hearing 17 November: My Submission

2025/11/11 Leave a comment

My submission, focussing on the Liberal/NDP agreement to remove the recommendations by the House Immigration Committee is below.

While removal and the unlikely to withstand legal challenges to language, knowledge and security/criminality proposals makes sense, removal of a time limit of five-years to meet the residency requirement of 1,095 days does not.

More puzzling is the removal of the requirement for annual reporting on the number of persons reclaiming their citizenship. The Minister and officials appeared weak when discussing the numbers and expected impacts, underlying the need for IRCC to share this data on open data or annual reports as they will be collecting it anyway:

C-3 Citizenship SOCI SubmissionDownload

Filed under C-3, Citizenship Tagged with ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →