British Muslims’ #citizenship reduced to ‘second-class’ status, says thinktank

Similar to arguments against the Conservative government’s C-24 citizenship revocation provisions (repealed by the Liberal government), but the absence of due process in the UK example is particularly egregious:

British Muslims have had their citizenship reduced to “second-class” status as a result of recently extended powers to strip people of their nationality, a thinktank has claimed.

The Institute of Race Relations (IRR) says the targets of such powers are almost exclusively Muslims, mostly of south Asian heritage, embedding discrimination and creating a lesser form of citizenship.

The IRR’s report was published on Sunday amid renewed controversy over the case of Shamima Begum, who was smuggled into the hands of Islamic State aged 15, and in the wake of the Nationality and Borders Act – that allowed citizenship to be stripped without notifying the subject, coming on to the statute books.

Frances Webber, IRR vice-chair and report author, wrote: “The message sent by the legislation on deprivation of citizenship since 2002 and its implementation largely against British Muslims of south Asian heritage is that, despite their passports, these people are not and can never be ‘true’ citizens, in the same way that ‘natives’ are.

“While a ‘native’ British citizen, who has access to no other citizenship, can commit the most heinous crimes without jeopardising his right to remain British, none of the estimated 6 million British citizens with access to another citizenship can feel confident in the perpetual nature of their citizenship.”

Webber said before being used against the Muslim preacher Abu Hamza in 2003, no deprivation of citizenship had been authorised for 30 years. But since then there have been at least 217, with 104 removals in 2017 after the collapse of Islamic State in Syria.

Despite government claims that powers are only used against those who pose a grave threat to national security, or who have committed abhorrent crimes, the “Citizenship: from right to privilege” report argues the effect is that certain people have a “second-class, disposable, contingent citizenship”.

Webbersaid: “These classes of citizenship were brought in to target British Muslims of south Asian and Middle Eastern heritage. Such divisions act as a constant reminder to minority ethnic citizens that they must watch their step, and reinforce racist messages about ‘undeserving’ racialised groups unworthy of being British.”

The report describes the criteria for deprivation of citizenship as “nebulous and undefined” and warns of a risk of its use for political purposes, with Webber highlighting Begum’s case as an example. It was recently alleged Begum was rtrafficked into Syria by a spy working for Canadian intelligence.

“It raises the question: was Begum’s citizenship removed to divert attention from western agencies’ prioritisation of intelligence gathering over safeguarding vulnerable trafficked girls?” said Webber.

Citing the Prevent counter-terrorism programme, which has been dogged by claims of being a cover to spy on Muslim communities, the report said citizenship-stripping is “just one aspect of measures targeting Muslim communities, in Britain and abroad, in the past two decades, which have helped to turn British Muslims in the UK into a ‘suspect community’”.

The latest change to citizen-stripping powers in the Nationality and Borders Act, heightened public awareness – and criticism – of the existing rules as well as the additions, provoking public protests, opposition from campaigners as well as some MPs and Lords.

The Home Office said the legislation did not target ethnic minorities or people of particular faiths, and that the test for deprivation was clearly set out.

A spokesperson said: “Our priority is to ensure the safety and security of the UK. Deprivation of citizenship only happens after careful consideration of the facts and in accordance with international law. It is used against those who have acquired citizenship by fraud and against the most dangerous people, such as terrorists, extremists and serious organised criminals.

“We make no apology for doing whatever is necessary to protect the UK from those who pose a threat to our security.”

Source: British Muslims’ citizenship reduced to ‘second-class’ status, says thinktank

Here’s how the Canadian citizenship oath will look now that the Queen has died | News

Opportunity for the government to issue the revised version of Discover Canada, the citizenship guide, with this last change.

The revision was promised in 2016 by then minister McCallum, worked on by officials, with the new study guide in the final approval process under three subsequent ministers. Will Minister Fraser and PMO finally issue the new guide?

Every year, thousands of immigrants across the country look forward to the privilege of reading out the Canadian citizenship oath.

Since the death of Canada’s Head of State Queen Elizabeth II, many aspiring Canadian citizens have been wondering how the loss will reflect in the Canadian citizenship oath, since the text includes a line about bearing true allegiance to the Queen.

Here’s what it looked like while the Queen was alive:

“I swear (or solemnly affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, Second Queen of Canada, to her heirs and successors, that I will faithfully observe The laws of Canada, including the Constitution which recognizes and confirms the Aboriginal or treaty rights of First Nations, Inuit and Métis, and that I will faithfully fulfill my duties As a Canadian citizen.”

The text was updated last year to include and recognize Indigenous rights. It has once again been amended and all mentions of the Queen have been replaced by King Charles III.

“Following the passing of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II yesterday, the reference to Her Majesty in the Oath of Citizenship was amended to refer to King Charles III,” IRCC representative Stuart Isherwood told Daily Hive in an email.

According to that information, the new oath will read as follows:

“I swear (or solemnly affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, Third King of Canada, to his heirs and successors, that I will faithfully observe The laws of Canada, including the Constitution which recognizes and confirms the Aboriginal or treaty rights of First Nations, Inuit and Métis, and that I will faithfully fulfill my duties As a Canadian citizen.”

“This change was made in accordance with the Interpretation Act and applies to all citizenship ceremonies going forward,” Isherwood added.

“The Citizenship Act and written references to the Oath of Citizenship will be formally amended in due course.”

Source: Here’s how the Canadian citizenship oath will look now that the Queen has died | News

The Evolving Price of U.S. Citizenship [by investment EB-5]

Useful overview and history of the US citizenship by investment program:

Wealthy foreigners have had special access to U.S. citizenship since 1990. For $900,000, then $1.8 million, and now $1.05 million, the EB-5 Visa program has offered a 2-year path to citizenship. Over the last 14 months, the path has changed, disappeared, and reappeared in different forms.

Uncertainty has stalled visa applications and large commercial projects. But with passage of legislation in March, 2022, and upcoming regulations by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“UCSIS”), much of the path is now clear again. This article provides a short history of the EB-5 program, recounts key events from the last 14 months of chaos, and walks through the rules to know going forward.

The Basics of EB-5

As UCSIS puts it, Congress created the EB-5 path to citizenship to “benefit the U.S. economy by providing an incentive for foreign capital investment that creates or preserves U.S. jobs.” It’s the fifth “employment-based” path to permanent residency after those for (1) priority workers, (2) professionals holding advanced degrees, (3) skilled workers, and (4) “certain special immigrants.” Before 1990, a foreign investor who couldn’t meet those criteria had limited options, even if wealthy.

Those granted an EB-5 visa receive conditional permanent resident status for a 2-year period (i.e., a “green card”). After two years of compliance with the requirements (discussed below), permanent residence is pretty much guaranteed. The same benefits apply for one’s immediate family members.

In 1992, Congress authorized the use of “Regional Centers,” allowing foreign investors to pool investments in a single (though typically larger) enterprise that satisfies the EB-5 requirements for multiple investors. As of the end of 2021, over 632 Regional Centers have been authorized to accept EB-5 investments.

Who and How Many?

The EB-5 program is limited by statute to 10,000 visas annually. In 2019, of the 9,478 EB-5 visas, UCSIS granted 77% of visas to investors from Asia. 96% of visas granted were based on investment in a Regional Center.

Foreigners have invested over $40 billion in U.S. businesses through the EB-5 program. In 2019 alone, EB-5 applicants invested over $5 billion.

A Recent End to Uncertainty

Three events in the last 14 months upended the EB-5 process and community.

On June 22, 2021, a federal district court in California invalidated regulations from 2017 governing the EB-5 program. Among other things, the regulations had doubled the standard investment threshold from $900,000 to $1.8 million. The court held that the regulations were improperly created and effectively revoked them.

One week later, on June 30, 2021, the statutory authorization for Regional Centers expired. This has occurred several times before, and each time creates significant uncertainty for all involved. Without authorization, Regional Centers cannot support new EB-5 visas.

The expiration was partly cured this March with the enactment of the EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act of 2022. The law re-authorized use of Regional Centers through 2027, but also surprised many by repealing the previous statutory authorization. As a result, USCIS announced that “regional centers previously designated…are no longer authorized” and must seek redesignation. Business associations focused on the EB–5 program have expressed concerns and at least one regional center has sued.

Evolving Eligibility

Eligibility for an EB-5 visa requires that a foreigner make (1) an at-risk investment of (2) a threshold amount (3) of legally obtained funds in (4) a new U.S. business in which (5) the foreigner actively participates and that (6) creates at least 10 jobs. Requirements 3, 4, and 5 are usually easy to satisfy, and 6 much more so when an investment is made through a Regional Center.

1. At-Risk Investment. The foreigner’s invested capital must be placed at risk. Thus, she must make an equity investment, not a loan, personal guarantee, or promise to pay. While she can place funds in escrow pending visa approval, those funds cannot be kept separate past approval.

Investments in Regional Centers are subjected additional rules. For example, to ensure that funds invested in a Regional Center are creating jobs, they only count toward investment eligibility thresholds if they’re held by the entities closest to the job creation. Thus, funds aren’t counted if held and used by a holding company (e.g., to satisfy start-up and administrative expenses, including attorney fees, administrative fees, and rent).

2. Threshold Amount. The standard threshold investment is $1.05 million, increased from the original threshold of $900,000, and decreased from its height of $1.8 million under regulations invalidated last year.

The threshold investment is reduced for “rural” and “targeted employment areas.” As of this March, the new threshold is $800,000, increased from the original threshold of $500,000, and decreased from its height of $900,000.

3. Legally Obtained Funds. This requirement is self-evident. Notably, USCIS may and often does request evidence to demonstrate the source of funds. Greater burdens of proof apply for funds from Iran and other countries of concern.

4. New Business. In fact, the reference to “new business” is highly misleading. Since 2009, foreigners have been able to invest in existing businesses. That is, unless the existing business was formed before 1990. Even then, investing in an existing business is permitted under common circumstances.

5. Active Involvement. Though not stated by legislation, USCIS rules hold that a “purely passive” investment is insufficient. However, those rules also reference the sufficiency of policy formulation. In fact, according to the USCIS Policy Manual, it’s enough for an investor to have the minimal rights, powers, and duties typical of a limited partner.

6. Job Creation. The target business must create 10 full-time jobs for 2.5 years after the visa is granted. To demonstrate that this will happen, a foreigner’s visa application must include a business plan showing how the job creation requirement will be met (e.g., market analysis, competitor comparisons, financial projections).

This is by far the most difficult hurdle of the program. Says business advisor and tax lawyer Roberto Santos, “The business plan needs to hit all the criteria they’re looking for. Preparing a good application is very much about process.”

Satisfying the job creation requirement is made far easier by investing through a Regional Center. In doing so, investors are permitted to count both direct and indirect jobs. That is, jobs created by a Regional Center’s suppliers and service providers are counted, whether or not they’re in the targeted geographic area. The job creation requirement is also significantly reduced for failing target businesses, though that’s typically far less attractive to immigrating investors.

Looking Forward

The last 14 months created great uncertainty for EB-5 applicants and would-be Regional Centers. But after the legislation passed in March, and with upcoming regulations, we now have significant clarity on the critical eligibility requirements of the program. No doubt we’ll see more and more immigrants interested in using this path to citizenship.

Notably, a leading immigration treatise observes that the U.S. tax structure is the “main disincentive” to use of the program. This separate article discusses how some foreign investors mitigate the impact of becoming subject to worldwide taxation.

Source: The Evolving Price of U.S. Citizenship

The contract of Nigerian citizenship and diaspora voting

Of note, Nigerian debate over diaspora/expatriate voting, with relevance to Canada given the large number of Nigerian immigrants (among the top 5 in recent years):

In civilized democracies around the world, the constitutional architecture of public offices rightly prioritises the office of the president, prime minister, governor, mayor, member of parliament etc. Now, none of those offices would exist but for those who put them there and, therefore, to whom they are ultimately accountable: citizens.

The hypothesis therein is that the office of the citizen or, the citizen, is, upon the singular criterion of the power to hire and fire; more important that of the president, prime minister, mayor, governor, member of parliament or national assembly member! That is because all those office holders can be impeached for criminality, wrongful acts or omissions or a combination thereof by citizens, through their elected representatives. More importantly, sovereignty belongs to the people (citizens) of Nigeria from whom government derives all its powers and authority by virtue of section 14 (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, as amended, (“the Constitution”). What would be the point of any government without citizens anyway?

Who then is a citizen? The Constitution specifies 3 categories of citizenship; first, by birth; second, by registration, and third, by naturalisation. Citizenship, by virtue of section 25 (1) (a), (b) and (c), encompasses; every person born in Nigeria before independence, 1st October 1960, either of whose parents or any of whose grandparents belongs to, or belonged to, an indigenous Nigeria community. It includes every person born in Nigeria post-independence, either of whose parents, or grandparents, or any of whose grandparents is a Nigerian citizen; and every person born outside Nigeria either of whose parents is a Nigerian citizen.

Subject to the provisions of section 26 therein and strict residency requirements, a person, whether single, or married to Nigerian citizen, may be registered as a Nigerian citizen if such a person is of good character, establishes a clear intention to be domiciled in Nigeria, takes the statutory oath of allegiance to the country. Section 27 of the Constitution also establishes the modus operandi of citizenship by naturalisation upon similar foundations as that of registration.

Thus, a de facto social contract is established by the Constitution between citizens and government in that the “security and welfare of the people shall be primary purpose of government”, and the “participation by the people (citizens) in their government shall be ensured in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution” Section 14 (1) (a), and (b) therein, establishes that on the one hand; and, the fact that the people must abide by the laws of the land and, when abroad, obey the laws of those countries, on the other hand. That social contract in turn entitles, upon compliance with the relevant laws, people to the fundamental rights embedded in sections 33 through 43 inclusive of the Constitution. These include the right to: life, dignity of the human person, personal liberty; private and family life; freedom of thought, conscience and religion; freedom of expression and the press; peaceful assembly and association; freedom of movement; freedom from discrimination; and the right to acquire and own immovable property anywhere in Nigeria. These rights are not inviolable and may lawfully be derogated pursuant to section 45 (1) (a) and (b) of the Constitution in the interest of defence, public safety, public order, public morality or public health.

Today, September 7, 2022, Nigerian citizens domiciled abroad that is, Nigerians in diaspora, are not legally allowed to vote in Nigerian elections from their countries of domicile. In other words, they have been, and are being, disenfranchised and discriminated against.

This is a clear and present violation of the explicit provisions of section 42 (1) (a) which establishes that “a citizen of Nigeria of a particular community, ethnic group, place of origin, sex, religion or political opinion shall not, by reason only that he is such a person – be subjected either expressly by, or in the practical application of, any law in force in Nigeria or any executive or administrative action of the government, to disabilities or restrictions to which citizens of Nigeria or of other communities, ethnic groups, places of origin, sex, religions or political opinions are not made subject.”

The extant discrimination against Nigeria’s own citizens by the state, in violation of established constitutional provisions is perplexing and raises several pertinent questions.

One, is diaspora voting technology rocket science in the 21st Century? Alas, it is not! Afterall, if today’s smart encryption technology enables natural and unnatural persons to undertake secure financial transactions on a variety of portable devices, across continents and diverse time zones, why not electronic voting in diaspora?

Two, is there an absence of political will? Self-evidently! The International Institute for Democratic & Electoral Assistance (IDEA) affirms that Belgium, Canada, United Kingdom, USA are some of the western nations with a mature diaspora voting mechanism. IDEA also establishes that Angola, Benin, Burkina Faso, Kenya (as recently as 2022!), Morocco, Togo and South Africa et al have implemented diasporan voting into their electoral practices. The implication is that if the identified African countries, including a neighbouring state, can implement diaspora voting, there cannot be an objective rationale for discriminating against established Nigerian citizens who wish to exercise their rights to participate.

Three, is diasporan voting a back burner issue, which should not be prioritised? Again, the answer is no! Progressive nations consistently advance the security and welfare of their people (citizens), economic development, prudently manage public finances and, concurrently, discard outmoded practices and policies through innovative reforms. Put differently, citizens rightly expect performing governments to multi-task, and successfully deliver, on cross cutting themes impacting their lives whether its fiscal or monetary policy, national security, healthcare transformation, infrastructure development, education policy and electoral reform, the subject of this treatise.

Besides, the Nigerian Diaspora Commission estimates that there are approximately 17 million to 20 million Nigerians in diaspora who remit in excess of $ 25 billion annually to the Nigerian economy. If Nigerians in diaspora are good enough to remit billions to the home economy, which fuels economic growth in agriculture, education, healthcare, real estate, generates fiscal revenue for all tiers of government and, therefore, increasing GDP, upon what rational logic are they barred from participating in elections from their places of domicile?

To put this into some global perspective, the right to vote was routinely denied African- Americans and women in swathes of America, British and South African history. So, although the American Declaration of Independence was adopted on 4th July 1776, and the U.S. Constitution ratified on June 21, 1788, it took the abolition of slavery in 1865, through the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1866, for citizenship to be granted to all persons “born or naturalized in the United States, including former slaves and established “equal protection of the laws” for all citizens.

Whilst the 15th Amendment in 1870 enunciated that voting rights could not be “denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, colour or previous condition of servitude”, women only received the right to vote in the mid-19th Century with the adoption of the 19th Amendment; which impeded voter discrimination on the grounds of gender.

In the United Kingdom, women were only accorded full voting rights via the Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Act 1928. This statute gave women equal voting rights as men irrespective of their age and property-owning status. And, after decades of apartheid in South Africa, free and fair multiparty elections were administered for the first time in 1994, which produced “Madiba” Nelson Mandela as the first indigenous President of that country.

The above abridged historical detour is necessary in order to afford legislators and policy makers a broader and deeper understanding of, and the rationale for, the robust quest for electoral reform manifested, in part, in the extant advocacy for diaspora voting rights. After all, it took centuries for African Americans, all South Africans and women, around the world to gain the right to vote. It would be perverse to turn a blind eye to this pressing issue which, arguendo, will reinforce greater participation by a wider critical mass and, by deduction, reduce perennial voter apathy. The inescapable corollary is democratic credence and not democratic deficiency.

Paradoxically, the Electoral Act 2022 is silent on the question of diaspora voting. Section 9, Part III, of the latter statute, on the National Register of Voters and Voter Registration, does not expressly define a voter. It only makes reference at section 9 (1) (a) and (b) to persons: “entitled to vote in any Federal State, Local Government or Federal Capital Territory Area Council election” and “with a disability status disaggregated by type of disability.” A reasonable inductive interpretation to this provision is that “persons” therein assumes the same meaning as Nigerian citizens with the 1999 Constitution (supra), who have attained majority and suffer no legal impediments to participation in elections.

Synthesising the foregoing, it is recommended that: (1) legislators, irrespective of ideological leanings, seize the political will and enact the necessary reforms to place diaspora voting on the statute book without further delay; (2) amendments be made to the Electoral Act and expressly define a “voter” for drafting precision; (3) because the legal impediments to diaspora voting either wittingly, or unwittingly, creates two categories of citizens. That is, those within Nigerian borders and those domiciled abroad; that dichotomy constitutes an affront to the rule of law and the equality of persons. There cannot be two categories of citizens within the 1999 Constitution. Therefore, the lacuna created by the electoral disenfranchisement of Nigerians in diaspora should be tackled urgently.

Paraphrasing Hilary Clinton above, morality dictates that the integrity of the voting process will be enhanced, not diminished, with diasporan voting.

Ojumu Esq is the Principal Partner, Balliol Myers LP, a firm of legal practitioners based in Lagos, Nigeria.

Source: The contract of Nigerian citizenship and diaspora voting

‘Special treatment’ – different wait times for NZ citizen applicants

Of note, another country with wait time and backlog issues:

Fadi Hamdan, his wife and twin five-year-old daughters will become citizens at a ceremony next month after waiting for a year.

The Auckland IT engineer, who comes from Jordan, said it was galling to see other people go through the same citizenship by grant process in four months – and some quicker still.

“There are people who get their citizenship in 10 days, exactly 10 days. It’s not only a small amount of people, there are 600 people. So there is a special treatment going on, nobody knows about it.”

He was disappointed at the time it took and the lack of information when he asked for updates, querying why his application had failed automatic checks.

While there were not many practical differences between permanent residence and citizenship, a New Zealand passport could make travel simpler for people from countries where visas were usually needed.

For Hamdan, it became critical when his mother fell ill.

“I’m worried about going to see my dying mum. She had a stroke three times. I lost my father in October 2020 during Covid, because of Covid, and I don’t want to lose my Mum.

“We are not asking for an exception, all we are asking for is to be treated fairly and kindly. It will mean a lot, to be honest. It’s the last milestone that we were looking for since we arrived in the country.”

As of 18 August, there were 29,200 applications awaiting an outcome. Of those 9161 were from last year.

A random snapshot showed that on 17 August this year, 179 applications were approved for 2021 and 238 for 2022.

The National Party’s internal affairs spokesman Todd Muller said the backlog was similar to where it was last year when assurances were given about bringing waiting times down.

People would approach their MPs concerned about why their applications had failed to progress.

“It just gives them a huge amount of anxiety because they’ve understood that now they can move from residency to citizenship, they’re told they’ve got everything in order and then it just gets dropped into a big black hole and they don’t hear anything.”

Internal Affairs seemed to be processing recent applications first, which left those already in the queue waiting longer, he said.

Internal Affairs said it was analysing those who failed automated checks and categorising them to speed up the process.

Sixteen staff had been moved over to deal with the surge in passport applications and would move back there.

“The pipe coming into the organisation is bigger than the number of people that we have who are doing this work, particularly when you think about these are the same people who are also looking at the massive surge in passport demand that we’ve had,” said Internal Affairs deputy chief of service delivery Maria Robertson.

Not requiring migrants from English-speaking countries to prove their language ability had sped up their applications, she added.

Internal Affairs said some applications would take longer if the applicant had changed their name, spent a lot of time outside New Zealand since obtaining residency or had committed offences.

Others could be rushed through in urgent situations.

“Some applicants may not have been required to understand English in order to obtain residency – citizenship legislation requires most applicants to have sufficient knowledge of the English language, so sometimes additional checks may be required.

“It is not always easily possible to tell why an application has not passed an initial automated check. It could be related to data from INZ or another government agency or an answer in an application.

“Frontline staff who answer queries from applicants who have not yet been assigned a case officer do not have access to all the relevant information in an application.”

Source: ‘Special treatment’ – different wait times for NZ citizen applicants

Fight for fewer words: Pierre Poilievre promises new law against government jargon

One of the few areas where I agree with Poilievre with respect to public facing information. Harder of course to do so in legislation and regulation.

One of the ironies is that when the previous government was writing the new citizenship guide Discover Canada in 2009, we argued for more plain language for the guide and related test but the political staffer responsible largely ignored our arguments (Discover Canada is written at a high school level, more sophisticated language than the formal CLB 4 requirement):

Pierre Poilievre is waging one of his final battles in the Conservative leadership race — one in which even his main rival is onside.

His latest target? The jargon used by the federal bureaucracy.

In a video posted to social media on Thursday, the apparent front-runner promises to enact a “Plain Language Law,” that he says would bring an end to government jargon, including in legislative documents.

Poilievre began his announcement by invoking the words of Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, the famous French author of “The Little Prince,” who once wrote a line about perfection.

“Perfection is achieved not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to subtract,” Poilievre said.

“Unfortunately,” he continued, “our governments do nothing but add and add and add paperwork and forms and endless red tape.”

Poilievre said his new law would ensure government publications are instead written in simple, straightforward sentences,but he didn’t explain how such a law would work — or how the bill itself would be written without using jargon.

The law would also empower the auditor general to scan government publications for the presence of bureaucratese, he says, and provide Canadians with a government website where they can report any gibberish.

He said the law would also make it a job requirement for the government to hire writers that can write plainly and adapt bilingual language training for public servants to ensure they learn the most easy-to-understand words.

As for why it’s needed, Poilievre argues government documents, including forms, are needlessly complicated because the bureaucrats who write them use overly technical language, which creates hurdles for small businesses that have to read them.

All that time spent trying to understand what the documents say adds up, he says.

The federal government already has a policy about how its communications should sound, with rules stating its messages must be non-partisan and clear. The policy came into effect in 2016, early on in Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s tenure.

Poilievre’s announcement Thursday sparked a rare moment of agreement with Jean Charest, the former Quebec premier whom Poilievre has lambasted throughout the race for being out of touch with the current party.

In a short statement, Charest spokeswoman Laurence Tôth wrote: “We welcome this policy announcement.”

Poilievre’s fight for fewer words appears to be one he takes personally, as he complained about politicians’ use of jargon in a speech given more than a decade ago.

Back in 2009, when the prominent Tory only had five years of being a member of Parliament under his belt, he advised young conservatives on the value of learning to communicate as a way to advance their political careers.

Poilievre, who now boasts one of the largest social media followings in Canadian politics, complained then about how few people on Parliament Hill knew how to write and speak in a way that everyday Canadians could understand.

“It is not their responsibility to decipher excessively verbose language,” he said of voters.

Poilievre instructed his 2009 audience that the best way to learn to communicate plainly is to write for newspapers — which take complex ideas and use simple language to explain them to readers — and knock on doors.

Poilievre’s skill as a communicator is one of the reasons his supporters say they are backing him. His campaign says it sold more than 300,000 memberships and many Conservatives expect he will be elected the party’s next leader Sept.10.

Voting results will be announced that evening at a convention in Ottawa.

The party announced Thursday the event will feature a familiar face as a special guest speaker: Peter MacKay.

The former cabinet minister is an elder statesman in the movement, the party says, having led the erstwhile federal Progressive Conservative party into a merger with the Canadian Alliance in 2003, which birthed the modern-day Conservative Party of Canada.

MacKay decided against joining the leadership race this year, saying he was still paying down campaign debts from the 2020 leadership contest, which he lost to former leader Erin O’Toole.

Source: Fight for fewer words: Pierre Poilievre promises new law against government jargon

COVID-19 Immigration Effects – June 2022 update

My latest monthly update.

June numbers reflect a gradual but uneven opening across the suite of immigration-related programs compared to April and May.

The number of TR2PR transitions increased slightly compared to May but remained significantly below the latter half of 2021, again suggesting a decreased “inventory” and/or a conscious government decision to redress the balance and address backlogs.

While TRs/TFWP remained largely stable compared to May, the number of TRs/IMP climbed dramatically for Canadian Interests and the frustrating unclear categories of “other IMP participants” and “not stated.”

International students, applications and permits, continue to reflect normal seasonal patterns.

While last month, I thought that citizenship looked on track to continue whittling away at the backlog of close 400,000 (as if July 4), this appears unlikely at IRCC has been averaging about 30,000 per month in 2022.

The number of Ukrainians arriving in Canada, mainly under the Canada-Ukraine authorization for emergency travel remains significant, but has declined to only about one-third of all visitor visas in June compared to one-half in April and May, while overall numbers have declined somewhat and remain below pre-pandemic levels.

ss

Yakabuski: Official bilingualism is officially dead in Canada

Overly dramatic header but as we see in initial reactions in Quebec, recent action/inaction by the federal government, and the ever increasing gap between immigration to English Canada compared to Quebec, the trendline is not encouraging:

Statistics Canada surely did not time the release of language data from the 2021 Census to coincide with the launch of an election campaign in Quebec. But its publication of findings that confirm the decline of French within the province and across Canada are sure to light a fuse on the campaign trail as Premier François Legault calls for Ottawa to cede more powers to Quebec.

Neither did the federal agency likely consider the optics of releasing its report on the heels of the Aug. 15 Fête nationale de l’Acadie, the annual celebration of francophones in Atlantic Canada that marks the 1755 expulsion of thousands of their ancestors from the region by the British. Many ended up in Louisiana, where the French-language is today spoken by only a tiny minority of their descendants.

In May, as he revealed plans to seek full control over immigration policy if his Coalition Avenir Québec wins the Oct. 3 election, Mr. Legault warned that Quebec runs the risk of becoming another Louisiana without the ability to choose its own immigrants, including those who come to Quebec through the federal family reunification program. “It is a question of survival for our nation,” he said then.

Statistics Canada’s Wednesday report, showing that more newcomers to Quebec are using English as their first official language, will only serve to buttress Mr. Legault’s argument. The proportion of Quebeckers who primarily spoke English rose to 13 per cent in 2021 from 12 per cent in 2016, topping the one-million mark for the first time. The share who spoke predominantly French at home fell to 77.5 per cent from 79 per cent, despite extensive government efforts to “francize” new immigrants.

More than 70 per cent of Quebeckers who speak English as their first official language live on the Island of Montreal or in the suburban Montérégie region. The concentration of English speakers in and around the Quebec metropolis has long created linguistic tensions. Protecting Montreal’s “French face” is seen as imperative by most francophone Quebeckers, but many allophone newcomers to the city still gravitate toward English, sometimes even after attending French public schools.

And as Montreal goes, many fear, so goes the province. Which is why Bill 96 – the law adopted by Mr. Legault’s government in June that caps enrolment in English-language junior colleges among dozens of other measures aimed at protecting French – is seen by many francophones as a strict minimum.

Across Canada, French has been on the decline for decades despite Liberal prime minister Pierre Trudeau’s government adoption of the Official Languages Act in 1969. In 1971, French was the first official language spoken by 27.2 per cent of Canadians. By 2016, the proportion had declined to 22.2 per cent. In 2021, it fell again to 21.4 per cent. Where will it stand in 2026? You don’t need a PhD to figure it out.

The dream of a bilingual Canada d’un océan à l’autre may never have been more than that. But the reduction of French to folkloric status everywhere outside Quebec and in pockets of New Brunswick and Northern Ontario is the writing on the wall. Between 2016 and 2021, the proportion of the population speaking French at home declined in every region of the country except Yukon, where it rose to 2.6 per cent from 2.4 per cent. In New Brunswick, Canada’s only officially bilingual province, the share speaking French at home fell to 26.4 per cent from 28 per cent.

It may be fashionable among English-Canadian elites to enrol their kids in French immersion classes. But anemic rates of bilingualism hors Quebec and New Brunswick speak for themselves. Outside Quebec, Canadians who claimed an ability to conduct a conversation in both official languages dropped to 9.5 per cent from 9.8 per cent and down from a peak of 10.1 per cent two decades ago.

Even the federal public service, which once aspired to set an example, no longer prioritizes Canada’s official languages equally. In May, a Radio-Canada report showed that francophones are underrepresented in the upper echelons of the federal bureaucracy. Now, there is a push to waive French-English bilingualism requirements if applicants speak an Indigenous language or aspire to.

Removing barriers to career advancement faced by Indigenous people in Canada is a legitimate objective. But francophones argue it should not mean the diminution of the status of French within the public service. They worry that the appointment of Mary Simon as Governor-General, despite her inability to speak French, paves the way for more such nominations. They are not wrong to worry.

The latest census figures will exacerbate feelings of linguistic insecurity among francophone Quebeckers in particular. There will be consequences. We may witness a few of them on the campaign trail.

Source: Official bilingualism is officially dead in Canada

Feds announce four new passport service sites as backlog continues

https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2063068227573

Good service improvement move but will have limited impact on backlog. That being said, Service Canada data indicates progress compared to earlier months, although the number of applications is still greater than the number of passports issued.

Hopefully, ESDC/Service Canada and IRCC will publish monthly passport stats (applications and issued) on opendata as per other immigration and citizenship stats:

The federal government is adding new passport service locations across Canada as a backlog in processing applications continues.

Social Development Minister Karina Gould announced Wednesday that people can now apply for and pick up passports at Service Canada centres in Red Deer, Alta., Sault Ste. Marie, Ont., Trois-Rivières, Que., and Charlottetown, P.E.I.

That’s on top of five new locations added in July, and Gould expects to bring another seven to nine locations into the program soon.

“I think this is a really important and long-overdue change,” she said in an interview. “Those of us who live in more urban areas, we don’t realize that we’re so lucky to be close to a passport office.”

The additions should make it easier for people outside large centres to access services and ease stress on offices in regional hubs, she added.

No new federal money was required to make the change, Gould said. Resources come out of a revolving fund made up of passport fees. 

Gould said the current crisis and complaints over long wait times have accelerated the work but she was already looking at bringing passport services to more locations before the backlog.

She visited Sault Ste. Marie in April, before media began reporting on complaints over wait times. The local Liberal MP, Terry Sheehan, told Gould that people in the Sault had to drive seven or eight hours to Thunder Bay or Toronto to visit a passport office in person. 

Until Wednesday, there was no passport office on Prince Edward Island.

“So I was starting to already look at who is not close, and how can we fix this,” she said. “And then it became that much more acute.” 

Nearly 1.1 million applications for new and renewed passports have been filed since April as pandemic restrictions loosen and Canadians resume travelling. 

More than one-quarter of those hadn’t yet been processed as of early August.

Government statistics show the system is starting to catch up with demand, as the gulf between the number of passport applications each month versus the number of passports issued is getting smaller. 

Call centre wait times have gone down significantly and “triage measures” were implemented at 17 passport offices to mitigate in-person headaches.

Gould said 442 new employees were hired so far this summer and 300 are already trained and working.

But a large backlog remains.

In the first week of August, the number of passports issued within 40 business days of an application fell to 72 per cent from 81 per cent the week before.

That is largely because of mailed applications.

During the first week of August, passports from in-person applications were issued within the government’s 10-day service standard 95 per cent of the time, a rate that has remained steady throughout the summer.

For mailed applications the service standard of 20 days was met only 40 per cent of the time in early August, down from 53 per cent in late July. The government also warns it can take more than 13 weeks to get your passport by mail.

The overall numbers aren’t materially better than in June, when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was forced to respond to growing complaints and called the system’s performance “unacceptable.” 

The week of June 20, 76 per cent of passports were issued within 40 business days.

The processing times also don’t take into account the wait to get an in-person appointment and there are only a limited number of walk-ins available.

Proof of upcoming travel is required to get service within two months at offices with 10-day processing times, including those announced Wednesday.

Urgent services for people who can prove they need a passport within 48 hours are only available in bigger urban centres — Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Gatineau, Que., and Quebec City.

As the backlash over the wait times continues, some reports suggest Canadians are making “fake” travel plans to show to passport officers, then cancelling their flights once their application is in the queue. 

Gould said she’s not aware of this being a “widespread issue” but she has heard about it anecdotally. “I strongly discourage Canadians to do that. It’s unfair, it’s unkind and it’s unnecessary,” she said. 

Gould said at the morning press conference that the government failed to predict to what extent demand would sharply spike earlier this year. She insisted an unexpected glut of mailed-in applications is the main culprit in the passport delays.

Although she wouldn’t comment on the specifics of its deliberations, she said a cabinet committee stood up earlier this year — the Task Force on Services to Canadians — is looking at how to make sure that services under federal jurisdiction are being delivered in “a timely and effective way” that takes the toll of the pandemic into account.

Source: Feds announce four new passport service sites as backlog continues

‘Second Chances’: [USA] Racist law preventing citizenship for Black immigrants leaves man fighting his case from afar

Weird that US still makes distinction between in and out of wedlock. The 1977 Canadian Citizenship Act revisions removed that distinction on a go forward basis as well as gender discrimination:

After being deported, Kelvin Silva said he sometimes finds himself lying on the floor of his apartment, crying. He’s lonely – and alone. He’s scared, knowing that he’s fighting an uphill battle to gain U.S. citizenship and return home to North Carolina.

Silva – who identifies as Black and Latino – was returned to the Dominican Republic on Feb. 15 under an archaic law known as the Guyer Rule, which disproportionately affects nonwhite immigrants, especially Black fathers.

The Guyer Rule did not allow U.S. citizenship to pass from fathers to their biological children if the parents were unmarried, even though citizenship automatically passed to the children of other citizen parents who came to the country under the same circumstances. Were it not for the Guyer Rule, Silva, 45, would have automatically gained citizenship at age 11, his age when his father became a naturalized citizen.

Silva’s legal team – Asian Americans Advancing Justice (Advancing Justice-Atlanta), the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild and the Southern Poverty Law Center – filed a brief this week in the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, challenging this law that prevented Silva’s citizenship and resulted in his deportation to a country completely unfamiliar to him.

“Throughout his battle in the immigration court system and now the federal court, Mr. Silva has shown unswerving commitment and inspiring resilience in the face of this sexist and racist law,” said Peter Isbister, senior lead attorney for the SPLC’s Immigrant Justice Project. “The Guyer Rule is yet another part of the U.S. immigration system that unfairly targets Black and Brown people.”

Meanwhile, Silva’s entire family – including his children and grandchildren – resides in the U.S. But changing immigration law through the courts is a difficult process, even when a law like the Guyer Rule results in a grave injustice such as the one Silva is facing.

To cope with the uncertainty of his immigration case, Silva maintains an attitude of optimism. But he admits his smile is a façade concealing his sadness.

“From the beginning, it was rough,” he said. “I just put a smile on my face, but I don’t talk to too many people. This is really, really hard. But I’m alive. I breathe every day. It’s up to me how I’m going to tackle these obstacles, and I try to be happy.”

It’s been a shocking experience for Silva. Before U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) initiated deportation proceedings against him, he believed he was a U.S. citizen because of his father’s citizenship. So, when Silva was deported, he was stunned.

“I was scared, worried and nervous,” he said. “Nobody believed [deportation] would happen. Even I can’t get over it.”

Before being deported, Silva had spent 30 months in ICE detention, most recently at Stewart Detention Center in Lumpkin, Georgia, the deadliest immigrant prison in the nation. He said that while some give up on their immigration claims, he decided to fight. He doesn’t want to give up.

“I always have high hopes,” he said. “It will take time and it might be a long process, but I know there will be a good outcome for me – and for the other men in my situation.”

Betting on Congress

The Guyer Rule prevented U.S.-citizen fathers, but not U.S.-citizen mothers, from passing their citizenship status to foreign-born, nonmarital children. The rule disproportionately restricted how nonwhite parents could secure citizenship for their children – and for decades was maintained for just that reason. In short, U.S.-citizen fathers were discriminated against by the unfair denial of U.S. citizenship for their children born “out of wedlock.”

The Guyer Rule originates from an 1864 Maryland court decision, Guyer v. Smith, in which the court ruled that two sons born overseas of a white U.S.-citizen father and a Black mother from St. Barthélemy were “not born in lawful wedlock” and thus were not U.S. citizens. The Guyer Rule was subsequently incorporated into federal nationality laws, first through administrators’ policies and practices, and later by Congress through the Nationality Act of 1940 and the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.

Although Black immigrants were eligible for naturalization starting in 1870, historical and legislative records show that lawmakers nevertheless worked to limit the number of people of color who could become U.S. citizens. Administrators and legislators accomplished this goal in a variety of ways, including literacy tests, a racially discriminatory quota system and immigration preference categories that prioritized the “marital” family over other forms of familial arrangement, notably at a time when interracial marriage was illegal in most states.

In treating marriage as a prerequisite for fathers, but not mothers, to pass on their U.S. citizenship status to their foreign-born children, lawmakers were relying on the outdated stereotype that mothers have closer bonds with their nonmarital children than fathers.

Silva, however, only met his mother when he was 13 years old. His father and grandmother took care of him his entire life – not his mother. Simply put, because his parents never married, the law stopped Silva from becoming a U.S. citizen.

“[The Guyer Rule] is not fair,” Silva said. “I went to school in the U.S., grew up over there, made friends, family. But here I know no one. It’s weird, it’s hard, it’s rough.”

Congress partially remedied the unfairness of the Guyer Rule by passing the Child Citizenship Act of 2000, or CCA, which repealed the Guyer Rule. However, the CCA did not apply to people over the age of 18 when it passed – people like Silva.

Silva’s supporters and legal team hope that Congress will take swift action to make the CCA retroactive, which would allow him and other immigrants affected by the Guyer Rule to obtain citizenship.

“The goal of a nation’s citizenship laws should be to keep families together, not tear them apart,” said Meredyth Yoon, litigation director for Advancing Justice-Atlanta. “As Congress implicitly recognized by passing the Child Citizenship Act of 2000, a parent’s marital status has nothing to do with the bond they have with their child.

“Silva asks the court to rectify the harm done by the Guyer Rule by extending him full U.S. citizenship. By doing so, the court would take one small but crucial step toward undoing the inequities, including the systemic racism, that plague this nation’s immigration laws.”

‘I’m a fighter’

Silva is trying to find employment in the Dominican Republic as he hopes for his return to the U.S.

“I’m a human being just like everybody else, and everybody deserves second chances,” he said.

Silva truly misses his family. But, he said, “they belong in the U.S.” Because of that – being separated from his children and grandchildren – Silva feels “robbed.”

“The ripping away of the families and lives of people who came to the U.S. as children simply because their parents were unmarried is an antiquated and immoral act of which all of us should be deeply ashamed,” said Bacardi Jackson, interim deputy legal director for the SPLC’s Children’s Rights Practice Group. “Such a cruel and unjust punishment for the crime of being born outside of European norms is all the more despicable for its uneven effect on Black and Brown families.”

In the end, Silva knows he must persevere. As he tries to adapt to living in a country unknown to him, he leans on the support of members of his legal team, who reach out regularly to update him on his immigration case.

“I’m taking it day by day,” he said. “I’m a fighter; I have to do what I have to do. … Everything is in God’s hands, and things happen for a reason.”

Source: ‘Second Chances’: Racist law preventing citizenship for Black immigrants leaves man fighting his case from afar