Ireland: Universities received millions under golden visa scheme

Yet another example of a corrupt citizenship-by-investment scheme, along with a new wrinkle, university complicity. Scrapped earlier this year:

A pro-democracy organisation has criticised a ‘golden visa’ scheme in Ireland which benefited Irish universities as well as businesses and community projects to the tune of millions of euros over the past decade.

The Irish Universities Association had said it provided a lifeline of income to universities requiring urgent investment in facilities, but it is now being investigated by the Irish police for potential fraud.

Although the Immigrant Investor Programme (IIP) has officially ended, there are still decisions to be made on almost 1,500 applications – mostly from Chinese business people – which were lodged before the scheme closed.

The Committee for Freedom in Hong Kong Foundation accused the Irish government of selling residency for an ‘incredibly cheap’ price.

Mark Sabah, its director of EU advocacy, told the Business Postnewspaper that successful applicants were required to spend just one day in Ireland to qualify for residency, compared to up to 90 days in other countries with similar schemes.

The programme allowed 1,677 Chinese with at least €2 million (US$2.18 million) in personal wealth each to obtain residency rights since it was set up a decade ago.

Successful applicants were required to invest €1 million in an Irish business or to make a €500,000 philanthropic donation or a €400,000 donation in certain cases – and Irish universities were among the recipients.

The scheme was ended abruptly earlier this year because of growing concerns about money laundering and tax evasion.

Police investigate possibility of fraud

The Irish police are still investigating the possibility of fraud and if multiple Chinese investors obtained residency using the same money. Some 94% of the successful applicants were Chinese.

An audit carried out by the Department of Justice found that controls were insufficient and not applied effectively. Similar schemes across Europe have also been closed down, mainly because of security concerns and uncertainty over the origins of funds offered by individual applicants.

Ironically, the acting minister for justice who closed the scheme was Simon Harris who is also Minister for Higher Education. He held the justice portfolio while his colleague Helen McEntee was on maternity leave. He has since returned full time to the higher education ministry and is well aware of how universities benefited from the programme.

The Irish Times reported that Dublin City University received €4.4 million under the scheme, University of Galway secured €1.6 million in donations, while it is understood Trinity College Dublin also benefited significantly.

Peak body backed the scheme

The Irish Universities Association was among the various organisations that were asked for their views on the scheme before it was wound up. The association argued for its retention saying that it had enabled significant funding for third level institutions.

It said that with construction costs soaring, the programme provided a ‘lifeline’ for universities requiring urgent investment in facilities. It claimed that the process for considering and approving applications under the scheme was robust.

“IIP provides an immediate, positive impact on the quality of universities’ educational provision by investing in state-of-the-art, technology-enabled classrooms and spaces that facilitate project-based, production-oriented learning,” it said in its submission, which was recently released.

However, since the programme was scrapped, the association has not made any official comment, nor have individual universities.

Source: Universities received millions under golden visa scheme

US citizenship test changes are coming, raising concerns for those with low English skills

Similar debates when Canada changed the citizenship test in 2009. The initial drop in pass rates from about 95 percent to 85 percent eventually resulted in changes that resulted in a more reasonable pass rate of 91-92 percent more recently. But literacy, education and the related familiarity with tests all played a role:

The U.S. citizenship test is being updated, and some immigrants and advocates worry the changes will hurt test-takers with lower levels of English proficiency.

The naturalization test is one of the final steps toward citizenship — a monthslong process that requires legal permanent residency for years before applying.

Many are still shaken after former Republican President Donald Trump’s administration changed the test in 2020, making it longer and more difficult to pass. Within months, Democratic President Joe Biden took office and signed an executive order aimed at eliminating barriers to citizenship. In that spirit, the citizenship test was changed back to its previous version, which was last updated in 2008.

In December, U.S. authorities said the test was due for an update after 15 years. The new version is expected late next year.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services proposes that the new test adds a speaking section to assess English skills. An officer would show photos of ordinary scenarios – like daily activities, weather or food – and ask the applicant to verbally describe the photos.

In the current test, an officer evaluates speaking ability during the naturalization interview by asking personal questions the applicant has already answered in the naturalization paperwork.

“For me, I think it would be harder to look at pictures and explain them,” said Heaven Mehreta, who immigrated from Ethiopia 10 years ago, passed the naturalization test in May and became a U.S. citizen in Minnesota in June.

Mehreta, 32, said she learned English as an adult after moving to the U.S. and found pronunciation to be very difficult. She worries that adding a new speaking section based on photos, rather than personal questions, will make the test harder for others like her.

Shai Avny, who immigrated from Israel five years ago and became a U.S. citizen last year, said the new speaking section could also increase the stress applicants already feel during the test.

“Sitting next to someone from the federal government, it can be intimidating to talk and speak with them. Some people have this fear anyway. When it’s not your first language, it can be even more difficult. Maybe you will be nervous and you won’t find the words to tell them what you need to describe,” Avny said. “It’s a test that will determine if you are going to be a citizen. So there is a lot to lose.”

Another proposed change would make the civics section on U.S. history and government multiple-choice instead of the current oral short-answer format.

Bill Bliss, a citizenship textbook author in Massachusetts, gave an example in a blog post of how the test would become more difficult because it would require a larger base of knowledge.

A current civics question has an officer asking the applicant to name a war fought by the U.S. in the 1900s. The applicant only needs to say one out of five acceptable answers – World War I, World War II, Korean War, Vietnam War or Gulf War – to get the question right.

But in the proposed multiple-choice format, the applicant would read that question and select the correct answer from the following choices: A. Civil War B. Mexican-American War C. Korean War D. Spanish-American War

The applicant must know all five of the wars fought by the U.S. in the 1900s in order to select the one correct answer, Bliss said, and that requires a “significantly higher level of language proficiency and test-taking skill.”

Currently, the applicant must answer six out of 10 civics questions correctly to pass. Those 10 questions are selected from a bank of 100 civics questions. The applicant is not told which questions will be selected but can see and study the 100 questions before taking the test.

Lynne Weintraub, a citizenship coordinator at Jones Library’s English as a Second Language Center in Massachusetts, said the proposed format for the civics section could make the citizenship test harder for people who struggle with English literacy. That includes refugees, elderly immigrants and people with disabilities that interfere with their test performance.

“We have a lot of students that are refugees, and they’re coming from war-torn countries where maybe they didn’t have a chance to complete school or even go to school,” said Mechelle Perrott, a citizenship coordinator at San Diego Community College District’s College of Continuing Education in California.

“It’s more difficult learning to read and write if you don’t know how to do that in your first language. That’s my main concern about the multiple-choice test; it’s a lot of reading,” Perrott said.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services said in a December announcement that the proposed changes “reflect current best practices in test design” and would help standardize the citizenship test.

Under federal law, most applicants seeking citizenship must demonstrate an understanding of the English language – including an ability to speak, read and write words in ordinary usage – and demonstrate knowledge of U.S. history and government.

The agency said it will conduct a nationwide trial of the proposed changes in 2023 with opportunities for public feedback. Then, an external group of experts — in the fields of language acquisition, civics and test development — will review the results of the trial and recommend ways to best implement the proposed changes, which could take effect late next year.

The U.S. currently has the easiest citizenship test compared to other Western countries — including Germany, Canada and the United Kingdom — according to Sara Goodman, a political science professor at the University of California, Irvine.

Goodman said she uses the following metrics to determine the difficulty of a test: the number of questions required to pass and the number of questions overall, the percentage of applicants who pass the test, the language level of the test, and whether or not questions with answers are made available to study before taking the test.

In the U.S. test, applicants must answer six out of 10 questions correctly to pass. About 96% of applicants pass the test, according to recent estimates. The test is at a “high beginner” level of English, Goodman said, and a question bank with answers is made available to study beforehand.

But in the German test, Goodman said applicants must answer 17 out of 33 questions correctly to pass. About 90% of applicants pass the test, according to recent estimates. The test is at an “intermediate” level of German, according to Goodman. And a question bank with answers is made available.

The Canada and United Kingdom tests are even harder, and a question bank is not provided in the latter, Goodman said.

Elizabeth Jacobs, director of regulatory affairs and policy at the Center for Immigration Studies – a nonprofit research organization that advocates for less immigration – said the proposed changes would make the U.S. citizenship test even easier for many people.

“We think that’s in the wrong direction,” Jacobs said on behalf of the organization.

The proposed multiple-choice format for the civics section would put the answer to each question in front of applicants, Jacobs said, and would get rid of the memory challenge that’s in the current test.

Jacobs said her organization would prefer a test that includes more material and emphasizes American values, such as religious freedom and freedom of speech, more.

She added that most people who naturalize in the U.S. are not in the country because of merit or refugee status, but because of family sponsorship, where someone in their family became a U.S. citizen before them and petitioned for them to naturalize.

Jacobs said having a stricter test would help ensure that new citizens integrate into American society – and the economy – with sufficient English language skills, as well as promote a healthy democracy with civics knowledge and engagement.

Not everyone agrees.

“Is it important for us to even have a civics test in the first place? I don’t know the answer to that question,” said Corleen Smith, director of immigration services at the International Institute of Minnesota, a nonprofit that connects immigrants to resources.

Smith said USCIS already evaluates whether applicants have past criminal histories, pay taxes and support their children financially.

“They’re already evaluating that portion of your background. Is it also important to know this information about history and government and be able to memorize it?” Smith said, adding: “People that were born in the U.S. and are natural-born citizens — a lot of those folks don’t know many of these answers to the history of government questions.”

More than 1 million people became U.S. citizens in fiscal year 2022 — one of the highest numbers on record since 1907, the earliest year with available data — and USCIS reduced the huge backlog of naturalization applications by over 60% compared to the year before, according to a USCIS report also released in December

Source: US citizenship test changes are coming, raising concerns for those with low English skills

What the [USA] Birthright-Citizenship Debate Is Really About

More on political posturing by DeSantis and Trump with relevant background:

When my Google Alerts sounded this past week, I knew that birthright citizenship was again lighting up in the news. My interest in debates over birthright is professional and abiding: I’m a historian who in 2018 published a book, Birthright Citizens, that traced this approach to national belonging from its origins in debates among Black Americans at the start of the 19th century to 1868, when the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment established that, with a few exceptions, anyone born on U.S. soil is a citizen.

On Monday, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, looking to advance his presidential campaign, promised to reverse more than a century and a half of law and policy and, as he put it in a statement, “end the idea that children of illegal aliens are entitled to birthright citizenship if they are born in the United States.” A few days later, a spokesperson for another GOP presidential candidate, Nikki Haley, said she “opposes birthright citizenship for those who enter the country illegally,” and the entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy’s campaign said he would reform birthright by adding new citizenship requirements. Having lived through more than one such outburst in recent years—the first in 2018, when then-President Donald Trump proposed to do away with birthright—I know that any promise to transform our citizenship scheme is sure to set off a debate.

But what, we should ask, is that debate really about? Why does it keep coming up? When we talk about birthright citizenship, we are talking about democracy—its fundamental component that grants equal status to every person born in this country and affords them all the same rights of citizenship.

Let’s briefly review. Although the 1787 Constitution did not bar Black Americans from citizenship, it also did not plainly state what made any person a citizen. The result was that Black Americans received profoundly uneven treatment before the law; most authorities leaned toward the view that color, with its implied links to slave status, disqualified Black Americans from citizenship. Black activists waged a long campaign arguing that, on the face of the Constitution and as a matter of natural rights, Black people were citizens by virtue of their birth on U.S. soil.

Notoriously, the U.S. Supreme Court, in the 1857 case Dred Scott v. Sandford, concluded that citizenship was beyond the reach of Black Americans; their race disqualified them. During the Civil War and Reconstruction, lawmakers remedied this circumstance: first in an 1862 opinion from Attorney General Edward Bates, then in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and finally in the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which installed birthright in the Constitution, guaranteeing that Black people and all those born in the United States were citizens.

Calls today to do away with birthright citizenship are, in large part, political theater, often a way to project a tough stance on immigration. DeSantis outlined only a very loose strategy, saying he would “force the courts and Congress to finally address this failed policy.” Trump, too, was light on specifics. For all the noise that his administration generated around doing away with birthright citizenship, which he threatened to do multiple times as president, nothing came of it. The meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment as we knew it before the Trump era remains unchanged.

Campaign pledges to end birthright citizenship might get people’s attention, but lawmakers have kept this objective alive in other quarters. Less well known, for example, is how in every session of Congress from 2007 to 2021, a Republican representative introduced something called the Birthright Citizenship Act. The legislation would have redefined the meaning of a minor clause in the Fourteenth Amendment—one that limits birthright status to persons “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. In 1868, this exception excluded the children of visiting diplomats and those of Native American sovereign nations. Today, some lawmakers propose to newly expand the meaning of this clause by defining children as subject to U.S. jurisdiction, and thus birthright citizens, only when they have one parent who is a U.S. citizen or national, a permanent resident residing in the United States, or an alien on active duty in the Armed Forces. In Congress, opposition to birthright simmers on the back burner, but it demands our vigilance lest it boil over.

When politicians dispute birthright, they also open up legal questions about where the power to interpret the Fourteenth Amendment resides. Trump suggested that with his authority, as exercised through an executive order, he could reinterpret who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and thus a birthright citizen. Members of Congress similarly have taken the view that that body can legislate the amendment’s meaning. Many legal commentators rightly argue that the U.S. Supreme Court has the final say when it comes to the meaning of the Constitution. Our recently constituted Court has not been tested on the issue of birthright, and we must allow for the possibility that it might defer to Congress or the president when it comes to interpreting its meaning.

When Trump first promised to undo birthright, I was primarily concerned about how immigrants and their U.S.-born children would be harmed by such a change. Today, this worry still figures importantly in my mind, but my concerns have grown broader. Calls to undo birthright, though couched in terms of immigration reform, ultimately aim to undo a key precept of our democracy: equitable access to citizenship. Birthright sets an even bar when it comes to being a citizen—all those born here are subject to the same threshold test, no matter whom they descended from. It ensures that, for those born in the United States, citizenship will not be conferred depending on their politics, race, faith, culture, gender, or sexuality. Birthright safeguards those born here from political leaders who would mete out citizenship as a reward or withhold it as a punishment.

The wielding of citizenship as a weapon is precisely what the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to prevent. In 1868, birthright undid the Dred Scott decision. It ensured that the right of Black Americans to belong to this nation was neither open to debate nor susceptible to shifting political whims. Since its ratification, the Fourteenth Amendment has guaranteed the belonging of some of the most vulnerable among us, including generations of children born to immigrant parents. It has protected marginalized, despised, and unpopular people who, when born here, do not need to fear exile or banishment. Birthright citizenship has always been a solution rather than a problem, and our democracy depends on it remaining just that.

Martha S. Jones is the Society of Black Alumni Presidential Professor, a professor of history, and a Stavros Niarchos Foundation Agora Institute professor at Johns Hopkins University.

Source: What the Birthright-Citizenship Debate Is Really About

Canada’s citizenship numbers are rising. How many passed the test?

Some useful numbers on pass rates (91-92 percent). Seems largely unchanged once the initial revised version of test was revised around 2011 when the pass rates dropped significantly (language level and complexity of questions):

On Canada Day, more than a thousand people will be pledging their oath to the country as new Canadian citizens.

Ceremonies for 1,130 citizenship recipients are scheduled to take place across the country on Saturday, according to numbers Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada shared with Global News.

Passing a citizenship test is one of the requirements to officially becoming Canadian – and the majority who took the exam this year were successful, recent IRCC data shows.

Between January and May 2023, a total of 119,053 tests were completed – out of which 92 per cent passed, while the rest failed.

It was a similar story last year, with 91 per cent of the people passing among the roughly 260,000 citizenship tests that were completed.

By comparison, Canadians would be less successful, recent polling suggests.

A Leger survey of 1,512 Canadian adults found that only 23 per cent would pass the citizenship test, based on their answers to 10 randomly selected questions.

The average score of the Canadians who were surveyed was only 49 per cent – where 75 per cent is needed to pass the test.

Source: Canada’s citizenship numbers are rising. How many passed the test?

Curry: Removing one of life’s most memorable days with a Zoom call [citizenship ceremonies]

Another commentary bemoaning the proposed change:

The best part of the Canada Day baseball game between the Toronto Blue Jays and Boston Red Sox was not the leadoff home run by George Springer, or, even the game itself. The Jays lost.

It was the opening ceremonies.

But not the giant Canadian flag unfurled on field, or the Canadian Armed Forces team rappelling from the rooftop to the playing field, though both were pretty spectacular.

It was the Canadian citizenship ceremony.

Nine lucky new Canadians were chosen to participate, to match the starting lineup of the Jays. All clad in the Jays’ Canada Day red jerseys, they were individually introduced to the applauding 40,000 plus fans. The looks on their faces, the body language and the sheer joy of the occasion was something to behold.

After taking the oath of allegiance, in both official languages no less, they were all invited to throw out ceremonial first pitches to their Blue Jay counterparts. Some of them even managed to get the ball to the player’s glove.

It was magnificent, and the crowd cheered them on mightily.

Compare this national spectacle (the game was broadcast on Sportsnet) to the latest brain trust decision about citizenship ceremonies.

They will no longer be in person, but virtual.

Have the Ottawa bureaucrats who came up with this notion ever been to a citizenship ceremony? If they have, shame on them for taking away a memory that will last a lifetime for new Canadians.

The Government of Canada website now says most new Canadians will be invited to a virtual Zoom citizenship ceremony, instead of an in-person event.

That should bring a tear to potential participants’ eyes.

Gather around the computer screen, family, and look at other new Canadians, whom you will never meet in person, and a citizenship judge you will never meet, and crack a bottle of Champagne. We will celebrate with our little group, not all the other new Canadians being sworn in.

I have attended only one citizenship ceremony, and it was back when Jay Aspin was our Member of Parliament. I was invited, as the then executive director of the North Bay & District Multicultural Centre, to sit with the dignitaries (who? me?) and then congratulate each new Canadian after they became citizens.

It was a Canada Day outdoor event, in front of the museum. It was sunny and warm and each new Canadian had friends and family attending. It was a joyous event, even if the Blue Jays weren’t there. The

citizenship judge, imported from southern Ontario, was resplendent in his robes and his presence added gravitas to the event.

It was a day I remember vividly, and I was born in Canada. For those that were not, and became Canadian citizens that day, it was one of the most memorable days of their lives.

A lot has been written about this foolhardy decision to go virtual. I subscribe to Andrew Griffith’s daily Multicultural Meanderings blog, and in a recent post he analyzed the feedback the February announcement by the federal government received.

The announcement was made in The Canada Gazette, rather than in the form of a news release from the minister. When governments do that, they are trying to avoid negative feedback. But it came anyway, in droves.

In the almost 700 comments in the Gazette, opposition is nearly universal among citizens and about two-thirds of immigrants. Former Governor-General Adrienne Clarkson and former Calgary mayor Naheed Nenshi spoke out against it in the media, among many others, including former immigration ministers and citizenship judges.

But, Griffith noted, “Interestingly, strong support comes from applicants, many of whom are frustrated with the application process and its delays. This clear divide is telling.”

The government says the move to virtual ceremonies could save three months of citizenship processing time, and people won’t have to take time off work to participate. The clear divide Griffith is referring to is the bureaucratic slowness and backlog in processing citizenship applications that is frustrating applicants.

My take is those in the system that are okay with a virtual ceremony just want to get it done, because the process is taking so long. They have never been to a live in-person ceremony, so they don’t know what they are missing.

It is important for all the new immigrants we are seeing in our city, who one day will become Canadian citizens.

Mayor Peter Chirico is quoted in a Sunday BayToday article about Canada Day, saying “We’re coming up on our 100th anniversary of the corporation of the City of North Bay in 2025. Our city is such a diverse and accepting city. The face of North Bay is changing and we’re changing with it. So, we celebrate Canada Day and what Canada means, that it is an accepting place, that it is a safe, and welcoming place.”

Can North Bay replicate what the Jays did for the new Canadians? Not likely, but it could come close.

How about a Canadian citizenship ceremony right before a Battalion home game at Memorial Gardens? It would be full of people cheering them on, and each new Canadian could each take a shot at the Battalion goalie…who would, of course, let them score. What is more Canadian than hockey?

That would be a memorable evening.

Editor’s Note: Don Curry is a Regulated Canadian Immigration Consultant living in North Bay, and a member of the Bay Today community advisory committee.

Source: Opinion: Removing one of life’s most memorable days with a Zoom call

Think you could pass the citizenship test? Poll shows most Canadians would flunk

No surprise as believe other surveys have similar results. Reflects some of the arcane questions and the general lack of historical knowledge. Those who have to write the test have to prepare and pass rates, last time I checked, are over 90 percent. Similar to other countries, those who have to prepare generally have little difficulty, those who do not tend to “fail:”

Canadians’ hearts may be brimming with pride as Canada Day approaches, but a new poll suggests their minds aren’t full of the knowledge needed to pass a citizenship test.

In a survey of 1,512Canadian adults, Leger found that only 23 per cent would pass the citizenship test, based on their answers to 10 randomly selected questions.

People who wish to become Canadian need to answer 20 questions about citizens’ rights and responsibilities, as well as Canada’s history, geography, economy, government, laws and symbols.

They need to score at least 75 per cent to pass, but the average score of the Canadians who were surveyed was only 49 per cent.

The questions focused on things like famous Canadians (Who is John Buchan?), history (Who established the first European settlements in Canada?) and national symbols (Whose portrait is on the Canadian $10 bill?).

The correct answers, for those struggling along with most survey respondents, are: a popular governor general, the French and Viola Desmond.

History questions seemed to trip up respondents the most: For example, only 24 per cent knew that the House of Commons recognized in 2006 that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada.

Only 29 per cent knew the Constitutional Act granted legislative assemblies elected by the people, and only 41 per cent knew that English settlement began in 1610.

They fared slightly better when it came to national symbols and influential people: 49 per cent knew that Marjorie Turner-Bailey is an Olympian and descendant of black loyalists, and 42 per cent recognized Canada’s motto, “From sea to sea.”

Most Canadians were also in-the-know about the main groups of Indigenous Peoples in the country, with 79 per cent correctly identifying First Nations, Métis and Inuit.

People in Western Canada scored slightly better than their East Coast counterparts, with average scores in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and British Columbia at 50 per cent.

Those in Atlantic Canada scored the lowest, with a 44 per cent on average.

When the results were broken down by political affiliations, People’s Party of Canada supporters had the lowest average score at 47 per cent, while people who vote for the Bloc Québécois scored the highest, at 51 per cent.

There was one question most people seemed to have no problem answering: 81 per cent said they were proud to be Canadian.

The poll cannot be assigned a margin of error because online surveys are not considered truly random samples.

Source: Think you could pass the citizenship test? Poll shows most Canadians would flunk

Common Issues With Citizenship By Investment Program

Interesting that this appeared in CEOWorld with other articles providing general advice on how to apply:

You don’t have to be an expert to realize the fundamental problems with citizenship through investment programs or ‘golden visas.’ A standard golden visa scheme or citizenship by investment program provides for permanent residence and, ultimately, citizenship in consideration of investments in the economy. These schemes provide for a fast-track application process and quicker resolution of issues. These schemes were uncommon during the 1980s when they were first introduced but are presently an attractive way to draw in investors.

However, as they say, all glitters are not gold. Such is also the case with these programs. These programs have been formally structured and are monitored under the necessary rules and regulations. Yet, they have attracted a lot of problems that are making it difficult for countries to back them up. The substantive operation (even procedural at times) of these programs remains in question, and we will explore what they are in today’s discussion. Let us see what problems these programs commonly face.

Is it ethical?

The most common allegations thrown in the way of these programs concern their ultimate outcome: they grant citizenship in exchange for money. If I were to argue from the side of the opponents, you are basically telling people that they can show their true allegiance to the country simply upon investing. Many hardened arguments come from those with very strong, conventional notions of citizenship and its role in maintaining and encouraging national pride and integrity. To them, these programs sell citizenship. Hence, there are many ethical concerns about these programs.

Poorly undertaken due diligence

Generally, these programs do not restrict applications from any foreign national. A country may place a few oversight measures on those coming from select countries. However, these restrictions are limited to very few countries. Even so, due diligence is nevertheless in place. That is, of course, not the problem. The problem lies in the way due diligence is carried out. High-risk profiles need to be filtered out, but many countries fail to do so. While documentary proofs have been mandated, they are not assessed as a standard procedure. To gain as much investment as possible, countries maintain opaque due diligence systems to bypass regular procedural requirements.

Encouraging corrupt activities

Approving high-risk profiles, providing channels to launder money across the globe, and encouraging corruption are major negative impacts of these programs. If we keep aside the arguments on the ‘sale of citizenship’, these programs can operate smoothly and properly, provided their implementation is done right.

For example, Hungary suspended its Golden Visa program after allegations that certain dubious companies were granted the right to sell residence bonds without a transparent procurement process. These companies reportedly amassed over $600 million during the course of 4 years. Why does this happen? There can be several reasons. For instance, lack of verification of the source of funds or limited information on how the investments are contributing to the economy.

Too lax requirements

Many Caribbean countries operate some of the world’s easy-to-access citizenship by investment. Dominica, Saint Lucia, and Antigua and Barbuda, for example, do not impose minimum residence requirements, require very low levels of investment, and offer ultra-fast processing time. While the idea behind these programs is indeed to grant citizenship through a faster and easier route of investment, these requirements invite more suspicion than approval. Why? The answer is obvious: these programs offer safe havens to criminals who run away to these countries to evade the criminal justice system. The evasion of tax is another example.

Source: Common Issues With Citizenship By Investment Program

PQ proposes ‘citizenship’ ceremony for immigrants to Quebec

Meanwhile, the Canadian government has proposed making the citizenship oath self-administered and wanting to reduce the costs and likely numbers of citizenship ceremonies.
It always struck me that the Canadian government undervalued citizenship, particularly in Quebec given that it is one of the few exclusive federal programs that touches Canadians directly and reaffirms Canadian identity.
More PQ political posturing than substantive:
The Parti Québécois is proposing that welcoming and “citizenship” ceremonies be held for immigrants to the province, and that businesses that fully comply with the demands of the Office québécois de la langue française be awarded a publicly visible certificate of good conduct.
In a statement Wednesday morning, PQ language and immigration critic Pascal Bérubé said the proposals are part of an effort to promote the use of French and assist the integration of immigrants.

Source: PQ proposes ‘citizenship’ ceremony for immigrants to Quebec

Canadian Immigration Tracker – April 2023

Have am in the process of renaming this monthly update given COVID is long in the past, if not quite over.

Two things that struck me:

– Sharp decline in Permanent Residents admissions: from 44,780 in March to 29,335 in Apri

– Sharp decline in new Canadian citizens: from 28,249 in March to 15,220 in April

Reasons unclear.

Appears that data revisions for the IMP only affect the annual stock of permits, not the monthly flow data. We await more fulsome explanation from IRCC.

Indignity at a citizenship ceremony | TheSpec.com

A bit overwrought about the mention of Sir John A (lest we forget that Canada as a country might not have existed without him and others) but otherwise valid observations (although I suspect most participants were less critical than her):

A few weeks ago, I attended the citizenship ceremony of a dear friend of mine. I’ve never been more embarrassed to be a Canadian than I was that morning.

Once a Syrian refugee who had been kidnapped and tortured by ISIS, my friend had been looking forward to this day since his 2016 arrival in Canada. The agonizingly long wait he’d faced to have his citizenship application approved made it a particularly momentous occasion.

Arriving at the Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) building on a sunny Monday morning, an air of excited anticipation filled the lobby. The presiding official initiated the ceremony with opening remarks, including a land acknowledgment and a brief foray into Canada’s history as a nation of immigrants.

About two sentences after painfully mispronouncing the name of the Haudenosaunee nation, the official turned her attention to John A. Macdonald, painting Canada’s first prime minister as an archetypal immigrant which new Canadians ought to consider and revere.

Let me remind you of some of Macdonald’s other accomplishments, which include rubber-stamping the establishment of residential schools and enacting draconian Indian policy all with the goal of ridding Canada of its first peoples and their ways of being. Of all the immigrants the official could have mentioned who have shaped Canadian history, I question whether Macdonald was an appropriate choice.

Off to a cringeworthy start, the ceremony continued in a blundering fashion as the clerk continually lost her place in the order of ceremony. Every few minutes, everyone clapped their hands to their ears to muffle the ear-splitting squeal of microphone feedback as it became increasingly clear that IRCC had not troubled themselves to conduct a sound check that morning.

When the time came for the candidates to take their oath, the presiding member gave instructions for the candidates to repeat the words of the oath line by line after her. The candidates stood and proudly recited the oath — at least until the presiding official began to read in French.

This woman did not speak a lick of French. As she bungled rudimentary French phonetics and the candidates struggled to follow, audience members exchanged awkward looks. Some (myself included) struggled to maintain their composure at the sheer absurdity of the situation.

Source: Indignity at a citizenship ceremony | TheSpec.com