France Fast-Tracks Citizenship for Frontline Workers

2020/12/23 Leave a comment

Broader in scope than Canadian measures. Something for Canadian policy makers and politicians to consider:

Nine months after its president declared “war” against the coronavirus, France announced Tuesday that it has fast-tracked hundreds of citizenship applications from foreign frontline workers who have distinguished themselves in the battle.

“Foreign workers gave their time and swung into action for all of us during the Covid crisis,” said Marlène Schiappa, France’s junior minister for citizenship. “It is now up to the Republic to take a step toward them.”

The beneficiaries include not just health care workers but also garbage collectors, housekeepers and cashiers, Ms. Schiappa said.

The fast-tracking measure is a notable departure for a country that has adopted increasingly tight immigration rules. Caught in the clog of paperwork, citizenship applications can take years to complete, and the number of naturalizations has been decreasing over the years.

Some 48,000 people acquired French nationality through naturalization last year, or about 18 percent fewer than in 2015, according to statistics from the National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies.

The government initiated the measure in September, when France was bracing itself for a second wave of the pandemic. On Tuesday it announced that some 700 foreigners who were exposed to possible coronavirus infection through their work have been put on a fast track for naturalization since then.

Aziz Youssef, a Tunisian-born physiotherapist who migrated to France in 2014, said that obtaining citizenship by naturalization amounted to “an obstacle course.” He recalled first sending an application in late 2016 after graduating with a physiotherapy degree — and being given an appointment for a year later.

Mr. Youssef, who said that he had visited dozens of isolated patients during the first wave of the pandemic, had expected his application to be completed by 2022. But after learning about the government’s new exceptions for frontline workers, he checked in with the local authorities, who fast-tracked him. His penultimate interview took place in early December.

“Everything sped up very quickly,” Mr. Youssef said, adding that he viewed acceleration as “a form of recognition for the work that was done.”

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with , , ,

#Citizenship October numbers, year-to-date down 51.8 percent

2020/12/23 Leave a comment

The open data citizenship numbers, previously only up to June, have now been updated to October like most of the other datasets. No particular surprise, given media coverage, and it appears that IRCC has been working through existing applications given that testing was suspended until recently with only some piloting on online testing.

Country variations year-to-date are largely comparable whereas the October 2020 to 2019 variations are much greater, with France having the lowest impact, Iraq the highest.

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with , ,

Triadafilopoulos: Are Canadians really open to more migration in the future?

2020/12/14 Leave a comment

A useful warning against assuming getting back to normal:

How are we to make sense of Canadian immigration policymaking during the COVID-19 pandemic? On the one hand, the Trudeau government has pledged to increase both its already ambitious admissions target for 2020 and its annual immigration levels in the next three years. The government’s expansive immigration strategy has earned the praise of immigration boosters while generating little in the way of skepticism (let alone criticism) from opposition parties. For the most part, public opinion has also fallen into line. Yet, paradoxically, the Government of Canada’s open approach to migration of all kinds has been marked by unprecedented territorial closure.

The same contradiction is evident among Canadians: their ongoing support of official multiculturalism has also coincided with increases in racist discrimination. A frank appraisal of Canada’s immigration policy must acknowledge the juxtaposition of aspirational openness, on the one hand, and de facto closure and growing hostility, on the other. Doing so makes it clear that any hope of returning to business as usual after the pandemic may be misplaced.

Canada has earned a global reputation for administering an expansive immigration policy. Bucking the global trend toward greater restrictiveness in the years following the global economic crisis of 2008-09, annual admissions rose steadily under Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s right-of-centre governments from 2008 to 2015. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s centre-left Liberal Party governments have introduced even more ambitious targets. These significant increases in immigration levels have been supported by all of Canada’s major political parties. Canadian governments, regardless of their partisan orientation, have also stood firm in their support of Canada’s policy of official multiculturalism, even as leaders of other liberal democracies have cast multiculturalism as a failed and dangerous experiment. Recent efforts to strike a more restrictive stance on immigration, notably by the populist People’s Party of Canada in the 2019 federal election, have come to naught.

Any hope of returning to business as usual after the pandemic may be misplaced

Public support appears to have held, despite the challenges raised by the pandemic. The most recent iteration of the Environics Institute for Survey Research’s long-running “Focus Canada” survey (published in October) revealed that,

[S]trong and increasing majorities of Canadians express comfort with current immigration levels, see immigrants as good for the Canadian economy and not threats to other people’s jobs, and believe that immigration is essential to building the country’s population … By a five-to-one margin, the public believes immigration makes Canada a better country, not a worse one, and they are most likely to say this because it makes for a more diverse multicultural place to live.

In their commentary for this series, the Environics Institute’s Andrew Parkin and Keith Neuman note that this increase in support for immigration “may in part be a counter-intuitive response to the pandemic itself: rather than focusing inward, Canadians are expressing a greater sense of social solidarity in recognition that, in the face of the crisis, ‘we are all in this together’.”

As we move into the second wave of the pandemic, the fragility of this solidarity is clear. Spikes in infections have led to new lockdowns, which, in turn, have slowed the summer economic recovery. Although the national unemployment rate has come down from a high of over 13% in April 2020, it remains stuck at about 9%. Employment growth has stalled and long-term unemployment has increased. Canadians find themselves living through a period of profound economic dislocation, unlike any in recent memory.

Moves aimed at containing the pandemic have also transformed Canada’s approach to migration. Canadians live in a country that has effectively shut itself off from the world. Despite the announcement of ambitious immigration targets, actual admissions shrank by 64% in the second quarter of 2020. The admission of resettled refugees and protected persons declined by 83%. Trips by residents of countries other than the United States to Canada fell by almost 96% from September 2019 to September 2020.

The current status quo is one of extraordinary closure, marked by popular support for strict controls and increased racism

A majority of Canadians appear to support strict border controls. According to a Nanos Research poll, 81% of Canadians “believe the Canada-US border should stay closed for the foreseeable future.” A 29 October 2020 report by the Association for Canadian Studies noted that 52% of Canadians would prefer to maintain currently low levels of immigration over the next twelve months. Only 24% supported “gradually [increasing] immigration levels” over the same period. An August 2020 survey by researchers at McMaster University and Dynata Research arrived at similar results.

Canada’s embrace of territorial closure has coincided with a spike in xenophobia and racism. A July 2020 poll by IPSOS Global Public Affairs revealed that nearly 30% of Canadians reported that they had “personally been a victim of racism, up five points since [2019].” A survey by the Angus Reid Institute noted that 50% of 500 respondents of Chinese descent had been “called names or insulted as a direct result of the COVID-19 outbreak … [A] plurality (43%) further say they [had] been threatened or intimidated.” A Statistics Canada report drawing on responses submitted from “more than 43,000 Canadians … to a crowdsourcing data collection [research project] on the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on Canadian’s perceptions of safety” found that

The proportion of visible minority participants (18%) who perceived an increase in the frequency of harassment or attacks based on race, ethnicity or skin colour was three times larger than the proportion among the rest of the population (6%) since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. This difference was most pronounced among Chinese (30%), Korean (27%), and Southeast Asian (19%) participants.

My fear is that aspirational openness may lead to misplaced confidence in a relatively painless return to business as usual once the pandemic has lifted. This is not to say that the reasoning underlying the decision to expand Canada’s immigration program in the coming years is not compelling. It is to draw our attention to the fact that the current status quo is one of extraordinary closure, marked by popular support for strict controls and increased racism. The pandemic has amplified tendencies that have long been present in Canadians’ opinions on immigration: support for mass immigration has depended on the strict policing of irregular flows; and favorable views on multiculturalism have always included demands that immigrants adopt “Canadian values.” This reality needs to be acknowledged and dealt with if Canada is to successfully resume its immigration program in a post-pandemic world.

Source: Are Canadians really open to more migration in the future?

Filed under Immigration, Polling Tagged with , ,

A new ranking is giving Canada’s approach to immigrants top marks, with a notable exception

2020/12/10 Leave a comment

Good summary of the report and findings. MIPEX is policy-based and evaluates policies, not how effectively they have been implemented or the actual socioeconomic outcomes.

For that reason, I prefer the OECD’s integration indicators approach as they compare outcomes such as unemployment, educational attainment, low-income etc. Have not yet updated this table with selected OECD indicators yet but unlikely that these have changed significantly.

And I remain to be convinced that access to municipal voting is that important in Canada given that we have a relatively straightforward citizenship path, one that will become even more facilitative should the Liberal government implement its election commitment to eliminate citizenship fees.

Nevertheless, policy comparison indices like MIPEX are useful policy tools given their comprehensive nature to understand differences between countries as long as one also looks at the actual socioeconomic indicators:

Canada has been ranked fourth in the world when it comes to integrating immigrants, after it fell out of the top five nations under the former Conservative government in the previous survey.

The country jumped two spots in the latest Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX) computed by an international network of experts in recognition of policies that emphasize equal rights, opportunities and security for newcomers.

The index, last released in 2015, puts Canada ahead of the world’s major immigration destinations: Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States.

“Since the last edition of MIPEX, Canada returned to its traditional path to citizenship and strengthened its commitment to equal rights and opportunities,” said the 2019 MIPEX profile on Canada to be released Wednesday.

“Over the past five years, Canada improved policies on access to basic rights and equal opportunities.”

Some improvements cited in the MIPEX profile of Canada include the 2017 Citizenship Act, by which the Liberal government removed obstacles for immigrants to meet residence and language requirements created by its Conservative predecessor; and the restoration of health care for asylum seekers.

“Five years ago, we were sixth and now we’re fourth. It’s worth saying that when you’re already so high up, it’s difficult to get an improvement,” said Anna Triandafyllidou, the Canada Excellence Research Chair in Migration and Integration at Ryerson University.

“I think the improvement should be valued significantly. Overall, we should congratulate ourselves.”

Basing their ranking on numerous indicators, researchers survey international government policies as to how well they treat migrants in eight areas: labour market mobility, family reunification, education, health, political participation, permanent residence, access to nationality and anti-discrimination efforts.

The index is peer-reviewed and released every five years to identify government policies that support or hinder newcomers in their integration. The number of countries covered has increased to 52 nations from 38 in the previous edition.

Top 10 countries

CountriesImmigration integration score
Sweden86
Finland85
Portugal81
Canada80
New Zealand77
USA73
Belgium69
Australia65
Brazil64
Ireland64

Source: Migrant Integration Policy Index 2020 Get the data

pastedGraphic.png

Scoring 86 points out of 100, Sweden has remained the top ranked country, followed by Finland (86) and Portugal (81), with Canada being awarded 80 points. New Zealand, the U.S., Norway, Belgium, Australia and Brazil round up the top 10.

“Among English-speaking countries, Canada is becoming a more attractive and inclusive global destination,” said Thomas Huddleston, director of research for the Migration Policy Group, lead author of the European Union-funded index.

“Canada, along with New Zealand, is taking the place of previous top-ranking countries such as Australia, the U.K. and the United States, which all go down in the MIPEX rankings this round under pressure from populist political forces.”

The index credits Canada for overall policies that encourage the public to see immigrants as their equals, neighbours and potential citizens.

“These policies matter because the way that governments treat immigrants strongly influences how well immigrants and the public interact and think of each other,” it noted.

“Integration policies emerge as one of the strongest factors shaping not only the public’s willingness to accept and interact with immigrants, but also immigrants’ own attitudes, belonging, participation and even health in their new home country.”

Bottom 10 countries

CountriesImmigration integration score
Bulgaria40
Poland40
Croatia39
Slovakia39
Latvia37
Lithuania37
China32
Russia31
Indonesia26
India24

Source: Migrant Integration Policy Index 2020 Get the data

pastedGraphic.png

As the world sees the rise of nationalism, populism and xenophobia, Triandafyllidou said Canada fortunately has very well established public support for immigration, with all major political parties recognizing the importance of pro-immigration policies.

But it’s not to say Canada doesn’t have room to improve on its ranking.

MIPEX found the political participation of immigrants in Canada “halfway favourable.”

While immigrants can become active in local civil society and become full citizens, it said Canada, unlike other major destinations, does not experiment in local democracy by expanding voting rights or consultative structures.

“Canada’s score is relatively lower in (newcomers’) political participation. The reason is there are no political rights for non-citizens,” said Triandafyllidou.

“It has not been part of the objective of different governments, including the current Liberal government, to open up channels for local political participation (as in) voting rights and to be a candidate.”

Source: https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2020/12/09/a-new-ranking-is-giving-canadas-approach-to-immigrants-top-marks-with-a-notable-exception.html

Filed under Citizenship, Immigration Tagged with ,

IMC Defends Sovereign and Societal Value Creation of Investment Migration Programs [citizenship-by-investment]

2020/12/09 Leave a comment

Of note. The international lobby group for citizenship-by-investment programs argues (unconvincingly) its case. No Canadian firms that I recognized:

The two-month deadline set by the European Commission for the governments of Cyprus and Malta to reply to the letters of formal notice regarding their citizenship-by-investment pathways is approaching. In advance of this date, the Investment Migration Council (IMC) wishes to engage with all relevant stakeholders and remind them of a number of salient points.

The legal case

The right to assign citizenship is very clearly the sole competence of a sovereign state. This analysis of the European Commission’s legal case has nothing to do with whether one agrees with the concept of citizenship by investment. The vast majority of EU legal experts argue that the Commission has no legal right to become involved in how sovereign states define citizenship law.

The IMC has sought the opinions of several legal scholars, including Professor Dr Daniel Sarmiento, a leading specialist in EU competence law, and Professor Dr Carl Baudenbacher, the former president of the EFTA court. The conclusion is clear: The EU has no competence in the area of citizenship. Moreover, the concept of ‘genuine link’ that was invoked by the EU is both vague and arbitrary. The European Court of Justice already found in earlier decisions that it is not relevant.

It is therefore unlikely that the European Court of Justice would rule in favour in the matter at hand, as this could have very serious secondary consequences, and could open the way for the EU to encroach on the power of granting nationality, which is reserved, in EU Law, for Member States.

As rightly noted by the European Parliament, “Nationality is defined according to the national laws of that State.”

Strong governance and due diligence

The IMC however understands and shares the concerns of both the EU and wider stakeholders around the question of proper due diligence on applicants to such programs. This is why it has developed, in cooperation with international anti financial crime firms BDO, Exiger and Refinitiv, a common best practice framework and developed a blueprint for good governance through due diligence standards to uphold the highest levels of integrity and transparency. [Download the ‘Due Diligence in Investment Migration: Best Approach and Minimum Standard Recommendations’ Report]

Nevertheless, the IMC suggests that there has been a significant exaggeration of the risks. Working in partnership with Oxford Analytica, the leading geopolitical risk analysis and advisory firm, it has identified that for all the publicly voiced concerns, the due diligence and governance in place already acts as a powerful deterrent. [Download the ‘Due Diligence in Investment Migration: Current Applications and Trends’ Report and the ‘Citizenship by Investment Programmes: An EU Risk Assessment’ Report]

Oxford Analytica found that the operational reality is that investment migration risks are primarily theoretical in nature. This assessment is broadly shared with the intelligence, security, and law enforcement professionals involved in managing investment migration. Potentially nefarious activity is a negligible percentage and compares very favourably to other legal migration pathways.

There are, of course, enhancements that should be made at corporate, sovereign state, and intragovernmental information sharing levels. The IMC and its membership community are committed to the highest of standards. We want to work in partnership with the relevant stakeholders to devise a formal regulatory system that mirrors those of financial and professional services providers and that will ensure the necessary protection. That system should be based on an objective and knowledgeable analysis of the reality of investment migration, not one that is based on scare stories and rumour.

A creator of societal and sovereign value

Investment migration is a vital lever for sovereign nations to raise debt-free capital, attract talented individuals, and deliver benefits to society as a whole. In Malta, to mention but one example, the Individual Investor Programme attracted EUR 1.4 billion directly into the island nation’s economy following the damaging Euro crisis. This liquidity has had profoundly positive consequences. There has been significant employment creation across all levels of society, and the Maltese government has greater autonomy to invest in vital infrastructure projects, some of which involve critical care for cancer patients.

Bruno L’Ecuyer, CEO of the IMC commented: “Investment migration pathways are now a well-established, normalised wealth management advisory practice. As is the case with other established financial and professional services practitioners, we want to work in partnership with all relevant stakeholders to ensure that sovereign and societal value can be maximised through prudent, responsible, and objective regulation.”

For this to happen, all investment migration advisors must run operations to the highest possible standards and be prepared to face the consequences if they are found wanting. Equally, stakeholders must understand that the privilege of granting citizenship and residence rights is solely the domain of a sovereign state, and that significant sovereign and societal value can be created through investment migration, particularly in the Covid era, which moreover in many instances is aligned with the UNs Sustainable Development Goals.

ENDS.

About the Investment Migration Council

The Investment Migration Council (IMC) is the worldwide association for Investment Migration, bringing together the leading stakeholders in the field and giving the industry a voice.

The IMC sets the standards on a global level and interacts with other professional associations, governments, and international organisations in relation to investment migration.

The IMC helps to improve public understanding of the issues faced by clients and governments in this area and promotes education and high professional standards among its members.

The IMC is constituted as a not-for-profit association under Swiss law. Based in Geneva, it has representative offices in New York, London and the Cayman Islands. Managed by a Secretariat under the direction of a Governing Board, the IMC also has a non-executive Advisory Committee, in which the most important industry stakeholders are represented. The IMC is funded by membership fees, donors and income from activities such as events, education, training, and publications.

(Membership list can be found here: https://investmentmigration.org/members-directory/ )

Source: IMC Defends Sovereign and Societal Value Creation of Investment Migration Programs

Filed under citizenship-by-investment Tagged with ,

Canadian Citizenship: Practice and Policy – Library of Parliament Paper

2020/12/08 Leave a comment

Good and useful overview:

Canadian citizenship can be obtained through birth on Canadian soil, by descent through birth or adoption outside of Canada to a Canadian citizen, or through naturalization (the process by which citizenship is obtained by a foreign national). Requirements related to citizenship are laid out in the Citizenship Act, as well as in the Citizenship Regulations and Citizenship Regulations, No. 2.

Responsibility for implementing the Citizenship Act lies with the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, who is supported by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) in managing the citizenship application process. The Citizenship Commission – an administrative body under IRCC that is made up of citizenship judges – also plays an important role, with duties including assessing citizenship applications to ensure they meet certain requirements under the Act and administering the Oath or Affirmation of Citizenship.

To become a Canadian citizen through naturalization, an individual must first obtain permanent residency in Canada and then apply for citizenship after meeting residency and other requirements. Applicants between 18 and 54 years of age must also complete a written test based on the official citizenship study guide (Discover Canada: The Rights and Responsibilities of Citizenship) and attend an interview to test their abilities in English or French and to discuss their application. Successful applicants attend a citizenship ceremony and take the Oath or Affirmation of Citizenship, through which they swear or affirm their allegiance to the Queen of Canada.

Loss of citizenship can occur if it is revoked (for example, due to citizenship being acquired or retained through false representation) or it can be renounced voluntarily (for example, if an individual chooses to become a citizen of a country that does not allow dual citizenship).

Several issues are currently at the forefront of discourse on citizenship policy. For example, census data show that the rate of citizenship among eligible immigrants declined between 2006 and 2016. The citizenship rate varies for different groups, with contributing factors including income level, education level and country of origin.

Another key issue is that of “lost Canadians,” which refers to individuals who were born before the 1977 Citizenship Act came into force and who should have been Canadian citizens under that Act but were deprived of Canadian citizenship because of outdated or obsolete provisions in the Canadian Citizenship Act of 1947. Many of the problems associated with “lost Canadians” have been addressed through amendments made to the Citizenship Act since 1977. Those whose cases are not covered by legislative amendments may be granted citizenship on a case-by-case basis at the minister’s discretion.

Finally, the concept of birth tourism refers to the practice by foreign nationals of coming to Canada to give birth for the sole purpose of securing Canadian citizenship for their child. While data suggest an increase in non-resident births in the past decade, it is difficult to determine how many non-resident births are cases of birth tourism. The federal government has recognized the need to better understand the extent of this practice and has commissioned further research on this topic.

Source: https://hillnotes.ca/2020/12/07/executive-summary-canadian-citizenship-practice-and-policy/

Full report link: https://lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ResearchPublications/202064E

Filed under Birthright Citizenship, Citizenship, Citizenship Act Tagged with , , ,

6 charged in ‘birth tourism’ scheme that cost U.S. taxpayers millions

2020/12/04 Leave a comment

Medicaid fraud, not the service itself:

Six people were charged in an elaborate “birth tourism” scheme that helped Turkish women secure U.S. citizenship for their children and cost American taxpayers upward of $2 million, federal prosecutors said Wednesday.

The alleged ringleaders, Sarah Kaplan and Ibrahim Aksakal, both residents of Long Island, New York, brazenly advertised their services on Turkish-language Facebook pages and websites with titles like “My baby should be born in America,” prosecutors said.

The defendants are accused of providing expectant mothers a full-service experience: lodging in New York, transportation, help applying for citizenship for their children, and purported “insurance” to cover all medical costs, which amounted to fraudulently-obtained Medicaid benefits.

The cost for these services: roughly $7,500, nearly all in cash, prosecutors said.

Between January 2017 and September this year, the suspects were paid approximately $750,000 in fees, and Medicaid disbursed more than $2.1 million in illicitly-obtained benefits, according to prosecutors.

“The defendants cashed in on the desire for birthright citizenship, and the American taxpayer ultimately got stuck with the $2.1 million bill,” Seth DuCharme, acting U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York, said in a statement.

Five of the defendants – Aksakal, Kaplan, Enes Burak Cakiroglu, Fiordalisa Marte and Edgar Rodriguez – were arrested Wednesday morning. They are all residents of Long Island, where they operated seven “birth houses,” prosecutors said.

The sixth suspect, who has yet to be taken into custody, was not identified.

Aksakal, Kaplan and Cakiroglu were charged with conspiring to commit visa fraud, health care fraud, wire fraud and money laundering. Marte and Rodriguez were charged with conspiring to commit health care fraud, wire fraud and money laundering.

It was not immediately clear if they had hired lawyers.

Birth tourism has long brought expectant mothers to the U.S. The benefits are substantial: the child is given American citizenship, granting them a lifelong right to live and work and collect benefits in the U.S. And when they turn 21, they can sponsor their parents’ application for an American green card.

But the six defendants charged Wednesday submitted fraudulent New York state Medicaid benefits applications stating that the Turkish women were permanent New York residents who had no income and who resided in one of the “birth houses” maintained by the suspects, according to court papers.

The suspects submitted at least 99 Medicaid claims for different women, according to court papers. In all, the defendants facilitated the births of approximately 119 children, who now hold U.S. citizenship, prosecutors said.

Two of the defendants, Marte and Rodriguez, used their experience as assistors, people who are trained and certified to help individuals in New York state apply for health coverage, to facilitate the Medicaid part of the scheme, according to court papers.

The $750,000 brought in by the defendants was funneled to bank accounts in Turkey, thereby preventing the government from seizing it, according to court papers.

The defendants allegedly used their web pages to attract customers. A January 2018 post to the “My Baby Should be Born in America” Facebook page reads: “If you believe your baby should be born in the USA and become an American citizen then you are at the right place.”

The post also informed would-be customers that the defendants’ competitors’ fees were higher because of “misguided information that insurance will not cover expensive hospital and birth fees,” prosecutors said.

Source: 6 charged in ‘birth tourism’ scheme that cost U.S. taxpayers millions

Filed under Birthright Citizenship, Citizenship Tagged with , ,

New U.S. Citizenship Test Is Longer and More Difficult

2020/12/04 Leave a comment

One of the better analyses of the test and expected impact that I have seen:

The Trump administration is rolling out sweeping changes to the test immigrants must take to become United States citizens, injecting hints of conservative philosophy and making the test harder for many learners of the English language.

The new citizenship test that went into effect on Tuesday is longer than before, with applicants now required to answer 12 out of 20 questions correctly instead of six out of 10. It is also more complex, eliminating simple geography and adding dozens of possible questions, some nuanced and involving complex phrasing, that could trip up applicants who do not consider them carefully.

Of the 18 questions removed from the previous test, 11 were questions that had simple, sometimes one-word answers.

The new test adds one more hurdle for immigrants who hope to become voting citizens, coming in the waning days of an administration that has imposed substantial new barriers to immigration and limits on the ability of those already in the country to aspire to legal residence and, eventually, naturalization.

One test question that has drawn particular scrutiny provides a new answer to the question, “Who does a U.S. Senator represent?” Previously, the answer was “all people of the state”; on the new test, it is “citizens” in the state.

Singled out for a new question is the 10th Amendment, which reserves to the states all powers not specifically granted to the federal government, a part of the Bill of Rights that is a favorite among conservatives questioning federal authority.

Another new question, “Why did the United States enter the Vietnam War?” has one answer that is considered correct: “to stop the spread of Communism.” The test does not take on the issue of the vehement protests or the huge death toll stemming from the war.

Immigration organizations, including some that have helped thousands of people complete their naturalization applications over the past decade, warn that the new test could make it harder for poor immigrants from non-English-speaking countries to become citizens and ultimately suppress the number of immigrants who vote.

Critics also said the new test could create even more backlogs in a system already plagued with delays.

“It’s a last-ditch effort on their way out the door for the administration to keep people from realizing their dreams of becoming citizens,” said Eric Cohen, executive director of the Immigrant Legal Resource Center in San Francisco, a nonprofit group that helps permanent residents apply for citizenship.

“There is no legal reason, no regulatory reason to do this,” said Mr. Cohen, noting that the citizenship test had remained unchanged since 2008. “They decided on their own that they have to change it for political reasons.”

Dan Hetlage, a spokesman for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the agency that oversees the naturalization process, said in a statement that the test was revised “to ensure that it remains an instrument that comprehensively assesses applicants’ knowledge of American history, government and values and supports assimilation.”

President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. has the option of reversing the changes, though that likely could not occur, if at all, until several months into the new year.

The new test will be required of all applicants who apply for citizenship after Dec. 1, though there is often a lag of several months between when candidates apply and when they are scheduled for an interview with a U.S.C.I.S. officer, meaning that some candidates may still be taking the old test.

The current pass rate for the citizenship test, according to U.S.C.I.S., is 91 percent. An analysis of the new test by the Catholic Legal Immigration Network suggested that 40 questions out of the original 100 remained unchanged from the previous version; the rest were reworded or newly introduced.

Already, some immigrants were expressing nervousness about changes to the test.

Nefi Reyes, an electrician from El Salvador who took the earlier test this year, passed with a perfect score. It had been 30 years since he had crossed the border into the United States to escape the civil war in El Salvador, and he voted in the United States for the first time in November.

“I feel lucky that I got it done,” Mr. Reyes said of the changes to the test. He had had difficulty memorizing the names of the colonies, he said, and the new test requires applicants to name not three of the original 13 states, as he had managed to do, but five.

Luz Gallegos, executive director of Todec, a nonprofit group that assists immigrants in Southern California, said her organization had seen a rush in immigrants applying to take the citizenship test, not only so they could vote in the November election, but because many hoped to avoid the new test. “As it is, it’s difficult for them to memorize all the answers to the civics test,” she said.

Immigrants are not alone in finding the citizenship test, even in its previous form, challenging. About one in three Americans could pass a multiple-choice test consisting of items taken from that version, according to a 2018 national survey by the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation. Most of the respondents did not know how many justices serve on the Supreme Court or which countries the United States fought in World War II.

Citizenship tests have gone through various incarnations since being introduced around a century ago, replacing an earlier system, broadly criticized at the time, in which naturalization judges evaluated immigrants’ knowledge of civics and the English language as they saw fit.

“There was absolutely inconsistency and unfairness in the way that prospective citizens were examined by naturalization judges,” said Jack Schneider, an assistant professor of education at the University of Massachusetts, Lowell, noting that such hearings resulted in the rejection of large numbers of applicants.

The test has changed considerably over time. Decades ago, the test asked how tall the Bunker Hill Monument is, missing, critics said, the more important issue of what it stands for. Another question, “How many stars are there on a quarter?” was deleted after it was noted that the right answer depended on the quarter.

The new citizenship test is one of a number of moves made under the Trump administration to not only halt unauthorized immigration but restrict legal immigration as well. The administration has made it harder for people to obtain asylum, increased the costs of applying for citizenship and, under the cloak of the coronavirus pandemic, suspended the issuance of green cards to immigrants seeking temporary work in the country.

Taken together, these moves amount to a break from what historically had been bipartisan support for naturalization for immigrants who lived and worked in the United States and embraced the opportunity to become citizens.

Applicants must already fill out a 20-page application, pass background checks, submit a bevy of documents and pass civics and English tests during an interview. The government moved this year to raise fees for naturalization from $725 to $1,170, or $1,160 if the application was filed online, but a federal judge in California blocked the increase in September.

Organizations that offer citizenship classes to help immigrants study for the test are scrambling to revamp their lesson plans to respond to the new questions.

Lynne Weintraub, who trains citizenship instructors and was involved in the design of the 2008 test, said the revisions were adopted without outside professional input that might have helped ensure that the test was a fair and valid measure of applicants’ knowledge of civics.

“You can’t even imagine the turmoil that this has created,” Ms. Weintraub said. The new test, she said, presents additional problems for many English language learners by clustering abstract concepts into one phrase in some questions, “making them impossible for immigrants with low English proficiency and less education to follow.”

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with , ,

128 Tricky Questions That Could Stand Between You and U.S. Citizenship

2020/12/01 Leave a comment

One of the better commentaries on the new test, designed to exclude, not include:

Take it from me, a noncitizen, there is much to learn from the naturalization test, one of the final hurdles an immigrant must clear to become a citizen.

It’s pretty tough actually, particularly the new and expanded version of the civics test that is to go into effect on Dec. 1. To those of us living under The Stephen Miller School of Exclusion, this is one more barrier to an immigrant’s quest to live here. The questions and answers are online now. I’ve been practicing in a variety of American accents.

The latest test has 128 civics questions about American government and history. Just getting to take the test usually means you’ve made it through an obstacle course involving reams of paperwork, thousands of dollars in lawyer and government fees, years of legal residency, a biometrics appointment and an English proficiency test. The questions come in the form of an oral test where an officer from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S.C.I.S., asks the would-be citizen to answer 20 of the 128 civics questions; if she gets 12 right, she passes. After that, all she needs to do is pick up her paperwork. Then she can pledge allegiance to the flag and decide which season of “Real Housewives” to watch to truly understand this complex nation.

The latest test is a jump from the current one, which requires you to study only 100 questions, and answer 10 of them, with 6 correct answers, to pass. The Trump administration has left almost no part of the immigration system untouched. It made changes large and small, from thundering bans of entire nationalities to insidious but potent administrative changes like this one. However innocuous some changes may seem, they illuminate the end goal: curbing legal immigration.

As with many Trumpian ideas, the seeds were there all along. The Naturalization Act of 1906 first decreed that citizens-to-be must speak English, and while English is not the official language of the United States, most immigrants today still have to pass an English proficiency test. The civics test is carried out only in English.

I’m a native English speaker, but I still find some questions difficult to understand. And unlike the study guide online, the questions are not multiple choice. That means that one day, if I get to take the test, I will have to try to keep a straight face as I look into another human being’s eyes and try to answer the question, “Why is the Electoral College important?”

Some people have an easier ride. If you are 65 or older and have 20 years of permanent residency under your belt, you are required to answer fewer questions. This makes me feel better about the substantial errors made by the 66-year-old senator-elect from Alabama, Tommy Tuberville. In an interview this month in The Alabama Daily News, Mr. Tuberville got the three branches of the federal government wrong and misidentified the reason the United States fought in World War II. To be fair, Mr. Tuberville played football for a long time. It is my understanding that this extremely American game involves repeated bashes to the head, one of which is bound to knock out some civics knowledge.

Speaking of senators, one of the more sinister changes to the civics test is the answer to the question, “Who does a U.S. Senator represent?” The only acceptable answer has been changed from all people of their state to citizens of their state. I’m just a person, not a citizen. Am I not worthy of representation? There was a whole kerfuffle about taxation without representation back in the day, I believe.

Simone Hanlon Shook is worried about these changes. “It’s just really punitive to people that don’t have advanced degrees and it’s not in their first language,” she told me. She said she was not worried about passing her own test when she took it on Oct. 7. It was the shorter and simpler one. Plus, she is a high school history teacher. Originally from Ireland, Ms. Hanlon Shook lives in Poughkeepsie, N.Y., and in past years used the U.S.C.I.S. questions to quiz her high school students as she waited her turn to take the real thing. “The idea was: if you weren’t a citizen, would you pass this test? And a lot of them wouldn’t.”

Her turn finally came during a pandemic, so the U.S.C.I.S. officer brought her into a room with an iPad, and then he went to the room right next to hers and conducted the interview virtually. She got 100 percent of the questions right and on Oct. 23 she was presented with her citizenship papers and a small American flag during a drive-through ceremony in a parking lot beside the Albany airport. The next day, she told me, she voted in the presidential election.

One day I hope to do the same, so I’m taking practice questions when I can. This one caught me out. “What is Alexander Hamilton famous for?” He’s famous for his cool ponytail and for being a breakout star on Broadway, right? Wrong. Apparently he’s famous for being “one of the writers of the Federalist papers.” Not sure what those are, but they sound serious.

Another one is “Name one example of an American innovation.” Voodoo-flavored Zapp’s chips spring to mind, as does unearned confidence. However, neither is included in the list of acceptable answers. Instead: light bulbs, skyscrapers and landing on the moon.

Hernan Prieto is the citizenship program coordinator at Irish Community Services, a nonprofit in Chicago that provides immigration and social services to immigrants of any nationality in the Midwest. Part of his job is preparing immigrants for the civics test. Unlike Senator-elect Tuberville, his students usually get the question about the branches of government right. They are also familiar with some of the names on the test, he told me. They know who Martin Luther King Jr. is and why he is important. Dates trip them up, though.

A green card holder from Argentina, Mr. Prieto hopes to apply for naturalization next year, and he told me he appreciates what he learns alongside other immigrants. Most crucially, studying civics informs would-be Americans of what they stand to gain and what they need to give if they hope to live up to this nation’s earliest motto. They learn that motto too; it’s “E Pluribus Unum” or “Out of many, one.” They learn that equality is promised by the Constitution, that nobody is above the law and that it is a civic duty to vote.

Mr. Prieto treasures that knowledge, but is not convinced that the test itself is helpful. “I don’t know that we need to have a formal test, with 128 questions that you need to learn, and get 12 of them right,” he said. “Do we really need that? What is important for a new citizen is to know their rights and their responsibilities. That is what levels them with other citizens.”

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/30/opinion/us-citizenship-test.html

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with , ,

Citizenship tests set to resume online after 8-month suspension

2020/11/28 Leave a comment

Better late than never:

The immigration department is resuming citizenship tests that were put on hold more than eight months ago due to the global pandemic, with safeguards in place to ensure proper identification of those taking the tests online.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) is launching a new virtual platform today for the citizenship tests, which will be offered online to a small group at first – the roughly 5,000 people who had dates scheduled before the pandemic that were subsequently cancelled, and other priority cases.

IRCC said the platform will be tested over the next few months and more people will be invited to use it — likely early in the new year — after performance monitoring proves it works reliably.

Before beginning the test, participants will be asked to confirm their identity through personal information, and they will have to take a photo of themselves and their ID documents with a webcam before the test can begin.

The system will take photos of participants during the test — a process that has been used to ensure the integrity of other tests that moved online due to the pandemic, such as bar exams or law school admissions tests.

20 questions, 30 minutes

The format of the online test will be the same as the in-person test, with 20 questions and 30 minutes to complete them. 

IRCC said in a notice provided to CBC news that that people do not need to reach out to the department — those invited to take the online test will be notified by email.

People can also wait to take the test in-person, but no date has been set yet for resuming that process. 

IRCC cancelled all citizenship tests, re-tests, hearings and interviews on March 14 due to the pandemic. Citizenship ceremonies were also halted at that time but have resumed since as virtual events.

Before COVID-19 struck, a citizenship modernization program was in the works that included plans for online tests.

Lives in limbo

Today’s development likely will come as welcome news to thousands of newcomers whose lives were in limbo because of the suspension.

All citizenship applicants aged 18 to 54 must pass the test to become Canadian citizens. Citizenship allows a newcomer the right to vote and obtain a passport, and also gives many a sense of security and permanence.

Many argued that if schools and universities can operate virtually, citizenship tests should be offered online as well. But some lawyers have warned that an online process could allow people to cheat the system.

IRCC says people can take the test whenever it’s convenient for them, while offering the test online will help to prevent the spread of COVID-19 by limiting in-person gatherings.

Source: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/citizenship-tests-immigration-pandemic-covid19-1.5815945

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →