IRCC Citizenship Evaluation: Uptake and Fees

Given my earlier work highlighting a recent decline in naturalization, a study guide and test written at more advance language levels, and the possible link with the increases in citizenship fees, found these sections of the recent evaluation of the citizenship program to be of particular interest, providing a nuanced analysis of recent trends and impact of the citizenship fee increases.

Found it somewhat amusing that the evaluation included a similar trend chart to one I shared a number of years ago to provoke some needed discussion, and one that I refined to provide a more accurate picture thanks to the advice of some former IRCC colleagues.

Interestingly, in the management response to the fee issue, no mention was made of the government’s election platform commitment to waive citizenship fees entirely but softer commitments to:

Action 1a: As part of IRCC’s review of citizenship fees, bring forward a plan to EXComm to address affordability.

Action 1b: Bring forward a plan for a free or low-cost option citizenship-specific language test based on the Canadian Language Benchmarks and work toward adding it to the list of acceptable evidence.

There is a wealth of data and analysis contained in the evaluation, including application data which is not published as part of the monthly operational statistics on opendata along with informative surveys on reasons for applying for citizenship:

4.1.1 Overall uptake

Canada has one of the highest naturalization rates among Western countries. Citizenship research based on census data shows that Canada’s naturalization rate (i.e., the proportion of PRs who become citizens) increased from about 81.6% in 1991 to 86.3% in 2016. However, the rate among more recent immigrants (five to nine years in Canada) declined, suggesting that immigrants are taking longer to become citizens.

Research based on Census data allows for the study of citizenship uptake over a longer period of time (30 or more years), but is less robust as it is based on self-reporting, and does not consider the immigrant’s decision to apply for citizenship as part of uptake process. The decision to apply is also a valid proxy of desire for citizenship. It does not exclude individuals with an interest whose applications are refused, or those who may be delayed in obtaining it due to limitations with IRCC’s application processing capacity. With this in mind, the evaluation examined citizenship uptake using administrative data from GCMS, and looked at the initial uptake of PRs admitted to Canada between 2005 and 2015, who had obtained or applied for citizenship by the end of 2018.

Overall, the analysis found that citizenship uptake was 57% for this population, with 50% of PRs having become citizens, and 7% having applied. The analysis also showed that the more years in Canada, the greater the percentage of PRs who had obtained or applied for citizenship (Figure 1). Citizenship uptake ranged from 21% after 3 years in Canada as a PR (2015 cohort) to 76.5% after 13 years in Canada as a PR (2005 cohort).

4.1.2 Challenges related to fees

Finding: The citizenship application fee is a common challenge for permanent residents, particularly refugees, families and those with lower income.

Sections 31 and 32 of the Citizenship Regulations deal with the structure of two fees related to citizenship: the Fee for Right to be a Citizen, and the Fee for Application to be a citizen. The Fee for Right to be a Citizen is payable only by applicants aged 18 years or older, at a cost of $100. The Fee for Application varies from $100 for minor grant applications, to $530 for adult grant applications.Of note, these fees do not account for extraneous costs related to applying for citizenship that applicants may incur.

The adult grant application fee increased twice during the evaluation period.A review of citizenship grant application data did not reveal a significant decrease in the volume of applications received after these changes were implemented.Interviews also suggested little to no impact of these changes overall, but pointed to possible challenges for vulnerable people, like refugees.

Evaluation survey results were consistent with interview findings. While many respondents did not indicate a problem with the application fee, 28% indicated that it had delayed or was preventing them from applying for citizenship at the time of the survey. This percentage was greater for resettled refugees and protected persons, respondents with a personal income of $60,000 or less, and those with 5 or more people on their application (or future application) (Table 4). Moreover, about half of evaluation survey respondents who had not applied for citizenship felt a lower application fee would encourage them to apply.

Census-based research also showed evidence of a more pronounced decline in naturalization among recent immigrants (5 to 9 years in Canada) with low family income. Findings from the interviews and focus groups with PRs suggested that economically disadvantaged newcomers, such as those who are unemployed, are not able to afford the costs associated with applying (e.g., costs associated with third-party language testing). Moreover, the fear of being unsuccessful in an application (e.g., not passing the knowledge test) and losing the applications fees (or paying to reapply) was also noted in the focus groups with PRs and program-led consultations on Discover Canada.  The impact of the fees was also thought to be amplified for larger families with multiple applications.

Citizenship test and study guide:

Interviews generally noted that the test is efficient, easy-to-grade, and objectively scored. However, the language level of the test and study guide was viewed as higher than the language requirement. Moreover, the evaluation observed that the two requirements involve different skills. The official language criteria are based on oral communication skills (speaking and listening), while the knowledge test is generally written and requires reading skills. Although applicants can access an audio version of the study guide and an oral knowledge hearing, this does not address comprehension challenges related to language level.

Program-led consultations on Discover Canada (to update the study guide) also found that the language level can be difficult for many newcomers. Similarly, research findings suggested challenges with the approach, as the knowledge test pass rate dropped sharply for applicants (18- 54) after the Discover Canada study guide was introduced – from about 96% to 83.5% in 2011. Consultation findings highlighted a need for the wording and tone to be more inclusive and easier to understand, and included suggestions for the use of plain language and definitions, having less text and more visuals, and providing additional tools and support to increase accessibility and effectively communicate the information in the study guide. As a result of these consultations, a new approach, including a new guide and additional tools, is being developed to help address these concerns, but it had not yet been implemented at the time of the evaluation.

Source: https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/documents/pdf/english/corporate/reports-statistics/evaluations/e1-2018-citizenshipprogram-eng.pdf

Green: Canada should revive the investor immigrant program and fix its past failures

Not aware of any studies that show meaningful benefits from investor immigration programs in OECD countries. Green is notably vague with respect to how he proposes to “fix its past failures” beyond increasing the investment threshold. The IRCC evaluation was devastating (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjN2Z6D2qDtAhX8GFkFHWXyCD4QFjAAegQIAxAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.canada.ca%2Fcontent%2Fdam%2Fircc%2Fmigration%2Fircc%2Fenglish%2Fpdf%2Fpub%2Fe2-2013_fbip.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2KiDUWqxbDR2xBXtujZnYm) and census data indicates the median incomes based on tax data to be minimal and lower than refugees. Quebec’s comparable program largely serves as a backdoor entry to other parts of the country:

From the earliest days of Confederation, immigration has been essential to Canada’s evolution and identity as a country. The labour – and tax dollars – of successive waves of people from around the world have supported universal health care, pension plans, education, national infrastructure, and the creation of small businesses and employment.

The economic stress caused by a global pandemic, on top of the dual realities of an aging population and a slow-growing population, make immigration more important than ever. It is also an opportune time for Canada to revive the investor immigrant program that was terminated in 2014, with a view to integrating it into our long-term economic strategy.

The federal government has clearly flagged that expediting immigration to Canada is a priority over the next several years.

In addition to setting a target to welcome 401,000 permanent residents in 2021, Ottawa recently made it easier for Hong Kong students and youth to quickly come to Canada on work and study permits, as well as offering new ways to stay permanently. The new permanent residence rules will also benefit people from Hong Kong already in Canada under existing work and study permits.

Then there’s the 300,000 Canadian citizens living in Hong Kong, many of whom, in light of recent political developments there, may be contemplating a return.

Also consider that although many applications were delayed by COVID-19, most are already well down the approval pipe and will proceed quickly once embassies and visa agencies fully reopen. Ottawa has already flagged that it will work to fast-track increased admission to Canada in 2021.

For all of that, there is much more that can be done for both prospective immigrants and Canada. At the top of that list is a practical reassessment of the investor immigrant class.

In 2020, the practical benefits of reviving the program far outweigh any misplaced concern about those “buying” Canadian citizenship.

Let’s not be hypocritical: Those of us already fortunate enough to live here stand to benefit as much as anyone who is new to the country.

The key to making it work this time around is to be clear-eyed about past failures, to refine the tax structure and better manage the five-year deposits required by these immigrant investors. It does not seem excessive to increase the $800,000 fee that was required before the Harper government cancelled the program. But in the past, those deposits were directed to provinces to foster the growth of small and medium-sized enterprises – a well-intentioned initiative that never took shape.

By learning from that disappointing experience, Canada can win on several counts.

It can seize opportunity to create a COVID-19 fund to help offset the economic cost of the coronavirus and attract immigrants who have the means to make a big difference in short order.

It can also attract a group of educated and financially secure immigrants who, along with their families, will make a lasting contribution to our economy. It is also an opportunity to bring regional and local governments into the process to ensure the funds are put to the best use.

Nowhere would that difference be felt more immediately than in the stabilization of the domestic residential real estate market, small business and employment, something of great importance to all Canadians and their families.

For some time now, there have been claims that housing markets, especially condominiums in urban centres, are threatened by an imbalance of supply and demand.

That’s a tough prospect for municipalities and provinces that have already been economically ravaged by the effect of the coronavirus.

Higher immigration levels – especially in the economic class – address this on a number of levels.

Furthermore, while much has been made of the pandemic-driven urban exodus, new Canadians tend to gravitate to and revitalize our cities.

Immigration is an important way for Canada to build long-term economic, social and cultural bridges around the world. Does anyone think it will be anything but beneficial to our relations with Washington that vice-president-elect Kamala Harris had such a positive experience as a student in Montreal?

We have always been justifiably proud of being a country of immigrants. Clearing the 2020 backlog, expediting new permanent residency applications and reinstating the investor immigrant class is both timely and strategic at a time when we need to reinforce our country as seldom before, and to ensure the long-term prosperity of all Canadians.

Green is a Managing Partner at Green and Spiegel and past chair of the Canadian Bar Association, National Section, Citizenship and Immigration

Source: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/commentary/article-canada-should-revive-the-investor-immigrant-program-and-fix-its-past/

Apex Capital Partners Launches Discounted Citizenship by Investment Program for Concerned Citizens Following Flood of Inquiries from Conservative Americans Looking to Relocate Abroad After Biden’s Presidential Victory

Almost funny but reflects a certain mindset (don’t recall any similar pitches from citizenship-by-investment firms targeted at Democrats following Trump’s election (the Cape Breton site encouraging Americans was more a welcome site):

 Apex Capital Partners, a boutique financial advisory firm specializing in advising international individuals and governments on Citizenship by Investment Programs (CIPs), today announced the availability of its “American Second Passport Program,” a new option intended for US citizens who are concerned with the country’s direction under President-Elect Joe Biden, and are now serious about moving abroad. Ultimately, CIPs provide individuals and their families with the legal means for acquiring second citizenships, passports and permanent residency in other countries, often in the Caribbean or Europe.

Apex Capital Partners typically receives approximately five inquiries from American citizens per year but is now hearing from numerous concerned citizens on a daily basis, experiencing a 650% increase in interest since the November 3rd election alone, when compared to 2019. This comes as no surprise, as leading up to the election the team has been inundated with requests from high net worth individuals, particularly conservatives, seeking to relocate abroad should now President-Elect Biden emerge victorious. Now, the Company is offering 35% off its American Second Passport Program until January 20, 2020 – Inauguration Day.

Many Americans are now very concerned about proposed significant increases to their income tax payments, as well as continued social unrest. Further, this year’s “American nightmare” fueled by COVID-19 has resulted in very restricted travel for Americans, limiting recreational or business trips for anyone possessing just a US passport. For these reasons, citizenship by investment in other parts of the world is widely considered a safe, financially secure passport diversification option.

Americans concerned by a Biden administration are turning to Apex Capital Partners, a leading, internationally recognized Company that works directly with both international governments and those pursuing citizenship abroad to implement strategies needed to acquire foreign citizenships. These alternative citizenship opportunities are made possible through CIPs, a legal transaction in the form of a real estate or infrastructure investment in exchange for citizenship, in countries such as the Caribbean and Europe – with popular examples such as St. Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Dominica, Grenada and Montenegro.

“CIPs are especially valuable now for three key reasons. One, with an alternative to a US passport, travelers and business executives can bypass the current travel COVID 19 restrictions in place. Two, people can reside in a safe, unthreatened place amid shaky US social and political conditions that they perceive are dangerous. Lastly and right now the most popular reason, is that citizenship abroad enables for more financial security and often reduced taxes – a concern felt by many conservatives and HNWI,” said Nuri Katz, Founder of Apex Capital Partners.

Interest to leave the country after Biden’s victory has also been expressed publicly to the nation by none other than President Trump himself, who recently suggested “maybe I’ll have to leave the country.” Prior to the outcome of the 2016 Election, many liberal individuals and families across the country threatened to leave if Trump was elected. Some people left, while many more turned to social media to state their displeasure with Trump’s administration. Four years later, the same trend came during the first 2020 presidential debate, when Google searches for “move to Canada” greatly spiked.

“Talk about leaving the country after an election outcome is certainly not new, but we’re now seeing it become a reality after such a difficult year. In 2017, around 5,000 people internationally obtained CIPs, but this year I estimate it to be 25,000,” said Katz. “Despite all the potential and personal reasons for wanting to leave the United States, it is still a very difficult decision and should be conducted with an experienced team of migration advisors as well as tax and legal professionals. Using a network of legal advisors, our team informs investors on viable options to seek citizenship and evaluate all financial consequences. Throughout this process, we’re here to help answer any and all questions.”

About Apex Capital Partners

Apex Capital Partners is a full-service advisory firm specializing in investment consulting and wealth management for a multinational, high-net-worth clientele. APEX provides services with end-to-end execution in areas such as second citizenship and immigration, wealth and asset management, financial services, and international real estate sale and development.

For more than two decades, APEX consultants have guided affluent individuals and their families through the complexities of foreign investing, and of obtaining second citizenship and residency. The APEX team also advises governments in establishing Citizenship by Investment programs, and provides support services to financial institutions, law firms, and family offices representing the interests of high-net-worth investors. For those interested in pursuing a citizenship by investment opportunity, please contact Apex Capital Partners by visiting http://apexcapital.partners/

Source: Apex Capital Partners Launches Discounted Citizenship by Investment Program for Concerned Citizens Following Flood of Inquiries from Conservative Americans Looking to Relocate Abroad After Biden’s Presidential Victory

Advocates calling on Canada to resolve citizenship application backlog

No surprise. The requests are largely reasonable (greater transparency on status of applications, resumption of tests but not waiving them). Given the government’s campaign commitment to abolish the fees, understandable that they request a reimbursement of the fees (to date, no sign of IRCC acting on that commitment):

Citizenship-applicants and their supporters are calling on the federal government to address the backlog that is preventing thousands from becoming Canadian citizens.

A group called Advocates for Resumption of Canadian Citizenship Tests held demonstrations in Toronto and Montreal on November 7. The group was formed in response to the backlog in citizenship applicants waiting to get approved for a test, or for a citizenship ceremony. Their next demonstration will be in Ottawa on November 28.

Canada’s immigration department, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada(IRCC), cancelled all citizenship tests, interviews, and ceremonies on March 14 in response to the pandemic. IRCC began offering online citizenship ceremonies in April, at a rate of about 2,500 to 3,000 per week, significantly down from the 4,700 they were processing per week in 2019.

Citizenship applicants must demonstrate basic knowledge of Canada, as per the Citizenship Act. Applicants now must meet this requirement by doing the citizenship test, which is currently not available online. Though some in-person retesting has resumed, this means for many that they are unable to get Canadian citizenship. As of September, there were about 85,000 people waiting to take the citizenship test.

As a result, they are unable to vote, work in certain government jobs, or get a Canadian passport.

“It worries us, when we receive several messages in our group from people describing how this is affecting their mental health, relationships, their ability to travel home, their government job prospects, the need to unnecessarily extend their PR status etc.,” wrote a spokesperson from the citizenship tests advocates in a media release.

Nael Asad is one of the co-founder of the advocacy group, and one of thousands waiting for an invitation to take the citizenship test. He has had his permanent residency since 2008, and applied for citizenship in April 2019. Before the pandemic, IRCC’s average processing time for citizenship applications was about one year, so Asad was expecting an invitation for around the time when the pandemic hit in March.

“It’s very disrespectful to leave 85,000 people or more out there in limbo without any kind of update,” Asad told CIC News. “Tell us, ‘OK we’re not going to open up until this pandemic are over,’ but for eight or nine months now they’re saying the same thing ‘We’re monitoring the situation, check our website for updates.’ So people are going every single day on the website to check for updates.”

He also described how being a citizen comes with a sense of security, especially for people who fled war zones to come to Canada.

“When you are a citizen, you are a citizen,” he said. “Nothing is gonna happen to you this is your home country, but technically it is not our home country until we become citizens.”

The advocacy group’s online petition now has over 9,000 signatures. They are making three calls to action for IRCC: transparency on what the immigration department has been doing with the applications since March; the resumption, or wavier, of citizenship tests; and the reimbursement of the citizenship application fee, which runs about $630 for adults.

CIC News reached out to IRCC on updated numbers of citizenship files processed, but did not receive a response in time for publication.

Source: Advocates calling on Canada to resolve citizenship application backlog

Trump administration revives talk of action on birthright #citizenship | TheHill

Last gasps, supported by the usual groups. Executive orders can for the most part be easily undone by the Biden administration:

The Trump administration has revived discussions around taking executive action targeting birthright citizenship in its final weeks before leaving office, according to two people familiar with the discussions.

President Trump has spoken throughout his first term about ending birthright citizenship. Drafts of a possible order have been circulating for some time, and there is now internal discussion about finalizing it before the Biden administration takes over in January, sources said.

The administration is aware the order would be promptly challenged in court, but officials would hope to get a ruling on whether birthright citizenship is protected under the 14th Amendment, according to one source familiar with the plans. Many lawmakers and experts have argued it is protected, but the courts have not definitively ruled on the issue.

“Since taking office, President Trump has never shied away from using his lawful executive authority to advance bold policies and fulfill the promises he made to the American people, but I won’t speculate or comment on potential executive action,” White House deputy press secretary Judd Deere said in a statement.The Department of Justice has been consulted about a possible birthright citizenship order given it would deal with the legal implications of the new policy. A spokeswoman for the department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The birthright citizenship measure is being discussed as one of multiple executive actions the Trump administration could take on its way out the door. White House chief of staff Mark Meadows told aides following Election Day to come up with possible policy priorities to push through in the two months before Inauguration Day.

Others in the works include additional reforms to the H-1B visa program, regulatory reforms and measures targeting China. The president earlier Friday announced two major actions aimed at lowering the price of prescription drugs.

The wave of action reflects how many in the White House are attempting to cement their agenda before the Biden administration takes over in January, even as Trump refuses to concede the race and has pursued thus far unsuccessful legal challenges in key battleground states.

The president first proposed ending the practice that grants citizenship to those born in the United States during his 2016 presidential campaign. He revived the idea in 2018 during an Axios interview, saying he would sign an executive order to enact the change.

Trump in August 2019 again said his administration was “very seriously” considering a measure to end birthright citizenship.

In each instance, lawmakers and legal experts have pushed back on the idea and cast doubt on Trump’s ability to unilaterally end birthright citizenship. They have asserted that birthright citizenship is protected under the 14th Amendment, which states, in part, that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Some outside groups and allies of the administration have wondered why Trump has waited until his final weeks in office to follow through on a birthright citizenship order that he has talked about for years.

“The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment was clearly intended to guarantee that emancipated slaves would properly be recognized as U.S. citizens,” said RJ Hauman, government relations director at the Federation for American Immigration Reform. “It is a fundamental misapplication of this clause that U.S.-born children of illegal aliens are granted automatic citizenship, much less the offspring of people who come here to simply give birth on American soil.”

“If the president finally issues a long-awaited executive order limiting birthright citizenship, it will be up to the Supreme Court to resolve this issue once and for all,” Hauman added.

Source: Trump administration revives talk of action on birthright citizenship | TheHill

Evaluation of the Citizenship Program

Reasonable findings and recommendations and findings covering some of the issues I have written about over the past few years: high citizenship fees, greater support for knowledge acquisition (including the long delayed revision to Discover Canada) and better and more coherent citizenship promotion. Helpful.

This report presents the findings of the evaluation of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada’s (IRCC) Citizenship Program. The evaluation was conducted in fulfillment of requirements under the 2016 Treasury Board Policy on Results, and considered program performance with a focus on the citizenship grants line of business and program management. The evaluation covered the period from 2013 to 2018, with some consideration of earlier years to better understand the implications of policy changes, uptake trends and program developments.

Overview of the Citizenship Program

The Citizenship Program administers citizenship legislation and promotes the rights and responsibilities of citizenship, impacting both newcomers who wish to become citizens as well as current Canadians. Broadly, the Citizenship Program consists of citizenship awareness, citizenship acquisition, confirmation and revocation, and program management.

To obtain Canadian citizenship, individuals must first meet eligibility requirements, complete and submit an application, and attend a ceremony where the oath of citizenship is recited before a citizenship judge. Applicants pay a fee for the grant application ($100 for a minor grant application and $530 for an adult grant application), and applicants aged 18 years and older pay a $100 fee for the Right to be a Citizen. Naturalized citizens are conferred legal status in the country and receive rights, namely the right to vote, hold public office and the right to remain in Canada. For many, citizenship is a significant milestone of their integration. Of the 2,826,300 permanent residents admitted to Canada between 2005 and 2015, 50% were naturalized citizens by December 31st, 2018, and a further 7% had applied for citizenship.

Broadly, the Citizenship Program expects to contribute to eligible permanent residents becoming Canadian citizens by ensuring that Canadian citizenship involves active engagement and is a valued status, that citizenship is accessible to all who meet eligibility requirements, including vulnerable groups; and that client service standards are predefined and maintained. In doing so, the department must also ensure that newcomers and Canadians are aware of the responsibilities and privileges associated with Canadian citizenship, that newcomers to Canada have a desire to become citizens, and that the integrity of Canadian Citizenship is protected through a robust processing and policy framework.

Conclusions and recommendations

Overall, the evaluation found that, with time, most permanent residents (PR) become Canadian citizens. However, the citizenship uptake rate can vary for different populations, and has declined among more recent immigrants, suggesting that newcomers are taking longer to become citizens. While there are many reasons for obtaining citizenship, evidence suggested that wanting to feel fully Canadian and to make Canada their permanent home are primary motivators for PRs. It was observed that the grant application approval rate is very high, and recent changes to eligibility under Bill C-6 have generally been facilitative. Furthermore, increases to the application fee over the evaluation period did not have a major impact on overall uptake.

Nevertheless, while most PRs do eventually obtain citizenship, accessing it comes with significant challenges for some, specifically those from more vulnerable groups.

Evidence showed that meeting the language and knowledge requirements can be difficult, particularly for refugees, as well as for those with low official language proficiency and less education. While the Citizenship Act has built in some discretion to waive these requirements on compassionate grounds, compassionate considerations are not well defined, and waivers are typically predicated on a medical opinion. Moreover, waivers have to be requested by applicants, but the waiver process is not well known and difficult to navigate. Evidence showed very few waivers requested or granted during the evaluation period. However, given the issues noted, it was unclear whether these numbers reflected an appropriate level of use of this mechanism.

In addition, the application fee was found to be a common challenge, particularly for refugees, families and those with lower income. The Citizenship Program does not currently offer any flexibility around grant application fees. The fee structure is set out in the Citizenship Regulations, and provides individual rates for adult and minor grants.

With this in mind, there is a need to re-examine the waiver process and fee structure in order to ensure that sufficient mechanisms are in place to facilitate equitable access to citizenship and to better serve and support prospective applicants who may be facing socio-economic challenges, as well as families with multiple applications and fees to pay.

Recommendation 1: IRCC should review the costs associated with applying for citizenship and implement a strategy to address the affordability of citizenship for prospective applicants facing economic challenges.

Recommendation 2: IRCC should implement and promote a clear and transparent process for knowledge and language waivers to ensure consistent access and decision-making for prospective applicants who need them.

The evaluation also found that the citizenship eligibility requirements related to physical presence, language and knowledge are largely set at an appropriate level. While there are various tools and methods in place to support the assessment of these requirements, findings were mixed in terms of their effectiveness, highlighting important challenges to be addressed.

It was observed that while the requirement for physical presence is clearly defined, it can be difficult for applicants to prove, as well as for IRCC officers to verify, without entry-exit information. For language, it was noted that the range of evidence accepted is very broad and does not always reflect the applicant’s actual language ability. When there are concerns, it can be difficult for IRCC officers to assess language ability, as the tools in place are subjective and officers are not formal assessors. For knowledge, it was noted that the test and study guide have a higher language level than that of the language requirement, and there is a need for more tools and support for applicants.

At the time of the evaluation, implementation of a new Entry/Exit Program was already underway, which was expected to address issues related to tracking and verifying physical presence in the future. In addition, a new approach for the knowledge assessment tools was being developed, with a new study guide and supporting materials, but had not yet been implemented at the time of the evaluation.

Thus, while a strategy is being implemented to improve the tools and methods available to assess physical presence in Canada, there is still a need to address outstanding challenges with respect to the tools and methods in place to assess the language and knowledge requirements.

Recommendation 3: IRCC should review the language verification process and put in place a strategy to ensure that IRCC officers are more effectively equipped to validate language evidence and better supported to assess language ability when needed.

Recommendation 4: IRCC should move forward with its plan to implement a new approach for the knowledge requirement, which could include a revised study guide and additional tools, to improve the accessibility of the required information and enhance supports for prospective applicants studying for and taking the knowledge test.

Overall, integration outcomes were positive for naturalized citizens. It was observed that many feel a sense of belonging to Canada, their province or territory and to their community. They have social connections in Canada and confidence in Canadian institutions. Moreover, many are performing well economically, and some are volunteering and participating in groups, organizations or associations.

It was also observed that many PRs, particularly those intending to apply for citizenship, feel a sense of belonging, have social connections and confidence in Canadian institutions, suggesting that newcomers with stronger feelings of connection to Canada have a desire to become Canadian. In addition, while a difference in employment earnings was found between PRs and naturalized citizens, this difference was not attributable to citizenship, but rather to the socio-economic characteristics of those obtaining it, largely previous earnings and length of time in Canada.

Differences between PRs and naturalized citizens were also found for volunteering and group membership. They were found to be more prevalent among naturalized citizens, followed by PRs intending to apply for citizenship, and lowest among those not intending to apply. The rates of volunteering and group membership also varied based on socio-economic characteristics.

Thus, evaluation results highlight the relationships between integration and engagement in Canadian society, and some of the dynamics of decision-making around citizenship. Becoming Canadian and active engagement are at the core of IRCC’s Citizenship Program objectives. While these objectives are generally seen as relevant and appropriate, the program has limited mechanisms and resources to influence them. At present, IRCC’s citizenship promotion activities are largely newcomer-focused and tied to the citizenship grant process or funded by the Settlement Program, which excludes citizens from its eligibility.

With this in mind, there is a need to ensure that the department’s objectives for citizenship promotion are aligned with the activities, mechanisms and resources in place to achieve them.

Recommendation 5: IRCC should review its objectives for citizenship promotion, and the corresponding activities, mechanisms and resources available, and develop and implement a plan to better support the achievement of its expected outcomes.

View or download the evaluation:

Complete report: https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/documents/pdf/english/corporate/reports-statistics/evaluations/e1-2018-citizenshipprogram-eng.pdf

Douglas Todd: Second passports can come with big trouble for Chinese citizens

China is not the only country that does not recognize dual citizenship. Many turn a blind eye except in the case of high profile politicians and others.

China’s enforcement, however, is more thorough and rigorous, which may affect the naturalization rate (about 56 percent of immigrants from China have acquired Canadian citizenship compared to 93 percent of immigrants from Hong Kong):

There is no shortage of rich Chinese citizens picking up second passports to make travel easier and establish a safe haven for their families, particularly in the U.S., Australia, Britain and Canada.

But there’s a hitch: The People’s Republic of China, unlike the other countries above, doesn’t, technically, allow its citizens to hold dual citizenship.

As a result many China-born residents have avoided revealing to their home country they have a second or third passport. They do not want to renounce their Chinese citizenship, in part because it would make it hard to do business in the giant economy.

The complexities of global passport regulations are not something a lot of Canadians think about. But migration specialists say they are often on the minds of many of Canada’s 1.7 million ethnic Chinese, the majority of whom have links to either China or Hong Kong, which in 1997 became part of China.

The ramifications of running afoul of China’s passport rules can be devastating. And they relate in difficult ways to recent headlines — including Ottawa’s claim last week it has a plan to airlift more than 300,000 Canadian passport holders out of Hong Kong, the ongoing house arrest in Vancouver of Huawei CEO Meng Wangzhou and this week’s Canadian spy agency revelation that China’s agents are actively intimidating Chinese-Canadians.

Nationalistic China takes the opposite approach to citizenship than laissez-faire Canada. While Canada does little to track whether its passport holders keep a meaningful connection to this country, China’s authoritarian leaders are stepping up pressure on the 60 million Chinese people spread around the planet to be more loyal.

China, which accepts almost no immigrants, claims it’s jacking up enforcement to reign in allegedly corrupt Communist party officials and business leaders. But critics say President Xi Jinping is also determined to silence critics and squeeze political rivals.

There are many ways it has turned problematic for a citizen of China to have more than one passport:

You’re a Chinese citizen if China says you are

The ramifications of running afoul of China’s passport rules can be devastating. And they relate in difficult ways to recent headlines — including Ottawa’s claim last week it has a plan to airlift more than 300,000 Canadian passport holders out of Hong Kong, the ongoing house arrest in Vancouver of Huawei CEO Meng Wangzhou and this week’s Canadian spy agency revelation that China’s agents are actively intimidating Chinese-Canadians.

Nationalistic China takes the opposite approach to citizenship than laissez-faire Canada. While Canada does little to track whether its passport holders keep a meaningful connection to this country, China’s authoritarian leaders are stepping up pressure on the 60 million Chinese people spread around the planet to be more loyal.

China, which accepts almost no immigrants, claims it’s jacking up enforcement to reign in allegedly corrupt Communist party officials and business leaders. But critics say President Xi Jinping is also determined to silence critics and squeeze political rivals.

There are many ways it has turned problematic for a citizen of China to have more than one passport:

You’re a Chinese citizen if China says you are

With one poll showing 47 per cent of China’s rich want to move to another country, China’s authorities are discovering, including through the leak of the Panama Papers, many prominent citizens have been snagging passports from other countries. The consequences for some have been horrifying.

Xiao Jianhua, a Chinese billionaire, went through some hoops to obtain a Canadian passport. So he thought he was protected from Beijing’s security services.

But Xiao was abducted in 2017 from a Hong Kong hotel and taken to China.

Xiao’s family ran an ad on the front page of a Hong Kong newspaper quoting him saying, “I am under the protection of the Canadian consulate and Hong Kong law” and “I enjoy the right of diplomatic protection.”

But Xiao’s declaration was worthless. Canada could do nothing. He remains incarcerated in an unknown prison in China while the government dismantles his empire.

Then there’s Gui Minhai, who left China, his country of birth, to study in Sweden. He earned a Swedish passport. And, in a bid to do the right thing, he joined the relatively few who renounce their Chinese citizenship.

But then Gui set up a bookshop in Hong Kong, which published gossip about Chinese politicians. Gui was kidnapped in Thailand, at about the same time four other Hong Kong booksellers disappeared.

Gui showed up months later on an official Chinese television station mouthing an apparently forced confession. “Although I have Swedish citizenship, I truly feel I am still Chinese,” he said, urging the Swedish government not to get involved in his case. He’s been sentenced to 10 years in jail.

Some Hong Kong legislators have dared say the obvious: It doesn’t matter if Hongkongers get new passports, because China still regards you as a citizen. It’s deeply troubling, said one diplomat, that China “deliberately blurs ethnicity and nationality.”

Huawei CEO plays a risky game with her passports

The U.S. government, in its extradition request to Canada, maintained Meng Wanzhou had seven different passports from China and Hong Kong. But Meng’s lawyers argued she had just two, one from China and one from Hong Kong.

However, Meng, whose family owns two mansions in Vancouver, has also obtained permanent resident status in Canada. That gives her and her family the right to free education and healthcare. It is also the final step before citizenship.

Since Meng is treated as a hero in China while she fights the U.S. extradition request in B.C. Supreme Court, how do her country’s leaders deal with the embarrassing reality she and some of her family members have been on the verge of becoming Canadian citizens?

Immigration lawyers maintain China turns a blind eye when Communist party favourites take out multiple passports. And that certainly seems possible in this case, since it is unlikely Meng would ever say goodbye to her Chinese citizenship.

However, now that the spotlight is on Meng, she could do what many other would-be Canadians have recently done: Renounce her permanent resident status in this country. That would make it possible for her to instead join the nine million people who have opted for Canada’s popular 10-year multiple-entry visitor visas.

What is the value of a Canadian passport in Hong Kong?

Meng’s case points to the confusing and crucial differences between a Chinese passport and a Hong Kong passport.

Contrary to what many people think, historians such as Jason Wordie maintain China’s authorities consider a Hong Kong passport, one of which is called a Special Administrative Region passport, mostly a convenient travel document.

So when Canada’s top diplomat in Hong Kong said last week that Ottawa has drawn up plans for a mass evacuation of more than 300,000 Hongkongers who hold Canadian passports, he did not get into the knotty legalities.

Only a fraction of Hong Kong residents identity more with China than Hong Kong. But since China insists on treating Hongkongers as its citizens, it could mean anyone born there who has a Canadian passport would, especially under the recent crackdown, be on the spot to renounce their Chinese citizenship.

If they do so, and especially if they shift to another country, that could lead to them being treated as foreigners in Hong Kong and China, severely shrinking their prospects: Many residents of Hong Kong who have Canadian, British, U.S. or Australian passports often say they remain in China’s booming protectorate because it is far easier to make serious money there.

In the past such people could get around the system by slightly altering either their Chinese or foreign-language names when they applied for extra passports, which made it hard for officials to track how many they had. But China is now perfecting facial-recognition technology to catch those who break the rules.

Contrary to what many people think, historians such as Jason Wordie maintain China’s authorities consider a Hong Kong passport, one of which is called a Special Administrative Region passport, mostly a convenient travel document.

So when Canada’s top diplomat in Hong Kong said last week that Ottawa has drawn up plans for a mass evacuation of more than 300,000 Hongkongers who hold Canadian passports, he did not get into the knotty legalities.

Only a fraction of Hong Kong residents identity more with China than Hong Kong. But since China insists on treating Hongkongers as its citizens, it could mean anyone born there who has a Canadian passport would, especially under the recent crackdown, be on the spot to renounce their Chinese citizenship.

If they do so, and especially if they shift to another country, that could lead to them being treated as foreigners in Hong Kong and China, severely shrinking their prospects: Many residents of Hong Kong who have Canadian, British, U.S. or Australian passports often say they remain in China’s booming protectorate because it is far easier to make serious money there.

In the past such people could get around the system by slightly altering either their Chinese or foreign-language names when they applied for extra passports, which made it hard for officials to track how many they had. But China is now perfecting facial-recognition technology to catch those who break the rules.

In more ways than one it’s becoming tougher to walk the multi-passport tightrope.

Source: Douglas Todd: Second passports can come with big trouble for Chinese citizens

Citizenship applicants call on Ottawa to resume knowledge tests halted due to COVID-19

Given that we are unlikely to be out of various lockdowns and restrictions for the next 6 months, hard to understand why the government is not able to move faster on this beyond citizenship being a lessor priority for IRCC.

The last dataset on new citizens dates from June, compared to immigration datasets which include August data and will likely be updated with September data this week:

After spending the prime years of her childhood fleeing conflict and living as a refugee in Turkey, Sedra Alshamaly describes her arrival in Canada four years ago with warmth and gratitude.

“It’s the first place we felt welcomed,” said Sedra, now 12. “We felt like we belonged here.”

Sedra and her family arrived in Canada in 2016 after a circuitous journey sparked by the Syrian civil war. Today, she describes herself as a more-or-less ordinary Canadian Grade 7 student and a budding artist.

Source: Citizenship applicants call on Ottawa to resume knowledge tests halted due to COVID-19

Trump administration’s revisions to the naturalization exam could make the test harder for immigrants seeking citizenship

Last gap of a lame-duck administration, still in denial and one easy to overturn. While there is always a case to update and revised citizenship processes, this is not the way to proceed.

Perhaps members of the administration could test themselves on their understanding of the Constitution and democratic principles and practices:

The Trump administration is planning to make the naturalization test, which immigrants must pass to become US citizens, longer, according to a draft memo obtained by CNN, a move that could make it more difficult and marks the latest in a string of actions intended to alter the citizenship process.

Last year, US Citizenship and Immigration Services, which administers the exam,announced that it was making changes to the civics portion of the test. The agency last launched revisions of the naturalization exam in 2009, “which implemented standardized test forms for both the English and civics test requirements,” according to a May 2019 memo. The memo also said the agency was in the process of formalizing a decennial revision process.

The agency appears to be nearing the finish line for its latest slate of changes. According to the memo, revisions include adding more civics test questions and topics, as well as changing the passing score. The exam generally consists of both an English test and civics test.

Over the course of his presidency, Donald Trump has tried to curtail legal immigration and doubled down on citizenship, teasing an end to birthright citizenship and attempting to include a citizenship question on the census. Earlier this year, his administration also moved to increase the cost of online naturalization applications from $640 to $1,160.

The naturalization exam is a crucial step to an immigrant’s path toward US citizenship. The planned revisions would stand to affect hundreds of thousands of immigrants who seek citizenship annually.

Currently, the exam features 100 civics questions. Hopeful American citizens are asked up to 10 of these during an interview and have to answer six correctly to pass. But the changes, according to the memo, include an increase in civics test questions from 10 to 20, and as such, changing the passing score to 12/20 instead of 6/10. The memo also says USCIS officers will ask all 20 questions, rather than stopping when an applicant reaches the passing score.

The updated test, according to the memo, “includes more questions that test applicants’ understanding of U.S. history and civics in line with the statutory standard than the current test.”

The agency says it added more topics touching on specific amendments to the Constitution, the “rationale for the legislative branch structure,” and an item on “American innovations.” It also includes more “why” questions, though it’s unclear what that entails.

It’s unclear when the agency will roll out the changes to the exam. USCIS declined to comment on the planned revisions.

“It’s not unprecedented to change the questions … what stands out to me is once again a desire to slow down the process and require more from immigrants,” said Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, policy counsel at the American Immigration Council, a non-profit group that advocates for the rights of immigrants, in part because it takes more to ask additional questions.

“This administration seems locked into an endless cycle of making the process more difficult and inevitably, discouraging more and more people from seeking citizenship and legal immigration benefits,” Reichlin-Melnick added.

USCIS, a part of the Department of Homeland Security, has been at the center of some of the administration’s most hardline immigration policies, notably policies that have made it exceedingly difficult for migrants to seek asylum in the US and the controversial “public charge” rule, which makes it more difficult for immigrants to obtain legal status if they use public benefits.

Ken Cuccinelli, who now serves as the senior official performing the duties of the Homeland Security deputy secretary, brought the agency into a rare spotlight when he served as the acting USCIS director, working to rebrand it as an vetting agency, rather than a benefits agency.

“Updating, maintaining, and improving a test that is current and relevant is our responsibility as an agency in order to help potential new citizens fully understand the meaning of U.S. citizenship and the values that unite all Americans,” Cuccinelli said in a statement last year when the agency announced it would revise the exam.

USCIS has boasted about the number of people it naturalizes on a yearly basis. In fiscal year 2019, USCIS naturalized 834,000 new citizens, an 11-year high. But during the pandemic, naturalization ceremonies, which occur in person, were halted.

Citizenship Oath Bill reintroduced: Addition of First Nations, Inuit and Métis Peoples recognition

The official release:

Ottawa, October 22, 2020—The Honourable Marco E. L. Mendicino, P.C., M.P., Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, issued the following statement:

“Today, the Government of Canada introduced a Bill to amend the Citizenship Act to change Canada’s Oath of Citizenship. This Bill proposes to insert text into the Oath that refers to the rights of Indigenous Peoples. It continues to fulfill our government’s commitment to implement the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action, specifically Call to Action number 94.

“The Government of Canada remains committed to walking the shared path of reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples. The proposed amendment to the Citizenship Act is one more vital step towards reconciliation, and demonstrates the Government’s commitment to the findings of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

“The new proposed language adds references to the Aboriginal and treaty rights of First Nations, Inuit and Métis Peoples:

“I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada, including the Constitution, which recognizes and affirms the Aboriginal and treaty rights of First Nations, Inuit and Métis Peoples, and fulfill my duties as a Canadian citizen.”

“The Oath is a solemn declaration that all newcomers recite during the citizenship ceremony. With this amendment, we are changing the Oath of Citizenship to be more inclusive, and taking steps to fundamentally transform the nature of our relationship with Indigenous Peoples by encouraging new Canadians to fully appreciate and respect the significant role of Indigenous Peoples in forming Canada’s fabric and identity.”

Source: https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/news/2020/10/oath-of-citizenship-bill-introduced-in-parliament.html