Oath of Citizenship bill tabled in Parliament

2020/02/19 Leave a comment

The formal announcement of Bill C-6:

The Honourable Marco E. L. Mendicino, Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, today introduced a Bill to amend the Citizenship Act to change Canada’s Oath of Citizenship. The bill responds to the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission by inserting text that refers to the rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The Government of Canada is committed to reconciliation and a renewed relationship with Indigenous Peoples based on recognition of rights, respect, co-operation and partnership. The proposed amendment to the Oath demonstrates the Government’s commitment to reconciliation and 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.”

All new Canadians recite the Oath before receiving their Canadian citizenship. By doing so, new Canadians promise to abide by the laws of Canada and to take on the rights and responsibilities of Canadian citizenship.

The Government encourages all new citizens to join the Canadian family by becoming active in their communities and upholding Canadian values.

Quotes

“The Oath is a solemn declaration that all newcomers recite during the citizenship ceremony. With this amendment, we will take an important step towards reconciliation by encouraging new Canadians to fully appreciate and respect the significant role of Indigenous Peoples in forming Canada’s fabric and identity.”

– The Honourable Marco E. L. Mendicino, P.C., M.P., Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

“The Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action are an important roadmap for all Canadians. From coast to coast to coast, orders of government, civil society, education and health-care institutions, and the private sector are demonstrating their commitment to this important journey as we build a stronger Canada together. The change to the Oath of Citizenship introduced today responds to Call to Action No. 94 and demonstrates to all Canadians, including to our newest citizens, that Indigenous and treaty rights are an essential part of our country.”

– The Honourable Carolyn Bennett, M.D., P.C., M.P., Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations

“Indigenous Peoples have a rich history and have helped shape this country. I encourage everyone to respect, learn about and understand the place and importance they have in this country. The Government of Canada is committed to fundamentally transforming the relationship with Indigenous Peoples. The change in the Oath is an important step to create a foundation for a stronger, more prosperous and inclusive Canada.”

– The Honourable Marc Miller, P.C., M.P., Minister of Indigenous Services

“The proposed change in the Oath recognizes the contributions that First Nations, Inuit and Métis have made to Canada. I am pleased that we are once again moving forward in making the Oath of Canadian Citizenship inclusive. Reconciliation and reaffirmation of rights will help Canada create a strong, inclusive Northern Policy that will benefit all Northerners and all Canadians.”

– The Honourable Dan Vandal, P.C., M.P., Minister of Northern Affairs

“I welcome the Government’s new legislation to change the Oath of Citizenship to better reflect a more inclusive history of Canada, as recommended by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in its final report. To understand what it means to be Canadian, it is important to know about the 3 founding peoples – the Indigenous People, the French and the British. Reconciliation requires that a new vision, based on a commitment to mutual respect, be developed. Part of that vision is encouraging all Canadians, including newcomers, to understand the history of First Nations, Métis and Inuit including information about the treaties and the history of the residential schools so that we all honour the truth and work together to build a more inclusive Canada.”

– The Honourable Murray Sinclair, Senator

Quick facts

  • The Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Final Report states: “Precisely because ‘we are all Treaty People’, Canada’s Oath of Citizenship must include a solemn promise to respect Aboriginal and Treaty rights.”
  • The Government consulted extensively with national Indigenous organizations on amendments to the Oath of Citizenship.
  • Canada supports the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The Declaration recognizes Indigenous Peoples’ human rights, as well as rights to self-determination, language, equality and land.
  • Today, Indigenous People are 5% of Canada’s population—more than 1.6 million people.

Source: Read more

Filed under C-6, Citizenship Tagged with

Rail blockades could affect vote to change citizenship oath: Conservative critic

2020/02/18 Leave a comment

May be more virtue signalling to the Conservative base or just another way to raise the profile of the blockade issue and the government’s response. But we shall see (for my earlier commentary on the proposed change to the oath, C-99 New Citizenship Oath: Dead on the Order Paper):

Blockades by Indigenous protesters will make it harder for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government to adopt planned legislation to add respect for First Nations treaties to Canada’s citizenship oath, says Conservative immigration critic Peter Kent.

“It will be difficult to engage in debate of this piece of legislation without the shadow of this week’s illegal blockades and the refusal of some in the Indigenous community, and many beyond the Indigenous community, to respect the rule of law,” Kent told CBC News on Friday.

Blockades by Mohawk protesters near Belleville, Ont., have snarled train traffic and stalled shipments of goods by rail. They are calling on the RCMP to leave Wet’suwet’en territory in northern British Columbia, where hereditary leaders were blocking roads leading to a construction site for the Coastal GasLink pipeline.

Immigration Minister Marco Mendicino has served notice that he plans to reintroduce a bill first tabled last May in the dying days of the last Parliament. The bill would require new citizens to promise to observe the laws of Canada, “including the Constitution, which recognizes and affirms the Aboriginal and treaty rights of First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples.”

In 2015, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which studied the impact of Canada’s residential school system, recommended adding respect for treaties to the citizenship oath.

Trudeau made changing the oath one of his instructions to former immigration minister Ahmed Hussen in his 2017 mandate letter. By the time legislation was finally tabled, however, there wasn’t enough time left before the House of Commons rose for the summer — then dissolved for the election — for it to be adopted.

Now, the 157-seat Liberal minority government is facing a very different Parliament — one where it needs the support of one or more opposition parties to get legislation passed.

Mendicino has started that process; he reached out to Kent on Friday to discuss the bill.

Kent said it’s too early to predict whether the 121-member Conservative caucus will vote to change the oath. However, he said, the blockades should trigger a “dynamic” debate in the House of Commons and within the Conservative caucus.

“This would have received, I think it is fair to say, dynamic debate in the previous Parliament if it had been tabled in time for a responsible consideration,” he said. “But I think in this minority Parliament, and given the realities that we see today, it’s going to be perhaps more dynamic than it might have been.”Kent said the Conservative Party respects treaty rights and the quest for reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples. He also said it could be argued that a promise in the existing citizenship oath — to observe Canada’s laws — encompasses treaty rights.

“Although I stand to be convinced in debate, I’m not sure that the specificity of including treaties, which are respected and which are among our body of laws, need to be specifically added,” Kent said.

“This is an opportunity to discuss and debate and hear from all quarters.”

Carolane Landry, spokeswoman for the 32-seat Bloc Québécois caucus, said the party will wait to read the bill before deciding whether to support it.

The 24-seat New Democratic Party caucus has not yet responded to questions from CBC News about whether it plans to endorse Mendicino’s bill.

Source: Rail blockades could affect vote to change citizenship oath: Conservative critic

Filed under Aboriginal, Citizenship Tagged with , ,

ICYMI: Modi Lost in Delhi. It Doesn’t Matter. Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his party have ensured that no political parties speak about equal citizenship and political rights of the country’s Muslims.

2020/02/14 Leave a comment

One take on the Delhi election results:

On Tuesday, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party suffered a major defeat in elections for the Delhi state legislature. Amit Shah, the prime minister’s confidante and the country’s home minister, led a highly divisive and sectarian campaign foregrounding Hindu nationalism and demonizing the city’s Muslims, and tried to paint the opposition Aam Aadmi Party and its leaders as treasonous.

Yet out of Delhi’s 70 seats, Mr. Modi and Mr. Shah’s B.J.P. won a mere eight seats, and the A.A.P., led by Arvind Kejriwal, who has been the chief minister of Delhi since 2015, won 62.

Mr. Kejriwal, an anti-graft activist turned politician, focused the electoral campaign of his party on his record of governance — the significant improvement he made to the delivery of services in public hospitals, the quality of education and infrastructure in schools, and the cost of electricity in Delhi.

Delhi chose Mr. Kejriwal for his performance as chief minister. While the B.J.P. plastered Mr. Modi’s face across the city, it did not offer any candidates for the Delhi state government who were more impressive or convincing than Mr. Kejriwal and his team.

Mr. Modi and his party might have lost an election but they won the ideological battle by setting the terms of electoral politics: For electoral success in India, it is no longer acceptable to speak about equal citizenship and political rights of India’s Muslims or speak out against the violence and hostility they encounter.

The election in Delhi was held while India has been witnessing continuous protests against a citizenship law passed by Mr. Modi’s government in December that makes religion the basis for citizenship. The new law discriminates against Muslims and advances the Hindu nationalist agenda of reshaping India into a majoritarian Hindu nation.

Mr. Shah, the home minister, had insisted the citizenship law would be followed by a National Register of Citizens, or N.R.C., which would require citizens to submit a set of documents to prove they are Indians. India’s Muslims and liberals worried that the citizenship register would become a tool to exclude or threaten to exclude Indian Muslims from citizenship.

Over the past two months, protests against the citizenship law and the impending N.R.C. spread across the country, from university campuses to poor Muslim neighborhoods, from distant border states to starry avenues of Bollywood.

On Dec. 15, the police in Delhi, which reports to Mr. Modi’s government, violently attacked students at Jamia Millia Islamia, a university with a large number of Muslim students. After the police assault, women from Shaheen Bagh, a working-class, mostly Muslim neighborhood adjacent to university, gathered in protest against the citizenship law and blocked a major road passing through the area. A tent was set up on the road and the protest quickly took on the air of a defiant carnival.

The numbers swelled and every kind of Indian opposed to the citizenship law gathered at Shaheen Bagh in solidarity. Two bitter winter months have passed; the women continue their protest despite the cold and the attacks by Hindu nationalist activists.

Throughout the Delhi election campaign, Mr. Modi’s party targeted Shaheen Bagh and sought to frighten the city’s Hindus by emphasizing the Muslim-ness of the protesters. Islamophobic rhetoric has been normalized in Mr. Modi’s India, but the Delhi campaign intensified it. Mr. Shah, who is also the president of the B.J.P., set the tone when he asked his supporters to push the button against the B.J.P. electoral symbol on the electronic voting machines so hard that the (mostly Muslim) protesters in Shaheen Bagh would “feel the current.”

At a Delhi election rally, Anurag Thakur, Mr. Shah’s colleague and India’s minister of state for finance, raised a sinister slogan: “These traitors of the nation! Shoot them!” A few days later, two Hindu nationalist activists opened fire on students and protesters at Jamia Millia Islamia and in Shaheen Bagh.

Parvesh Varma, a member of the Parliament from Mr. Modi’s party, sought to whip up Hindu fears by describing the Shaheen Bagh protesters as murderers and rapists: “They will enter your houses, rape your sisters and daughters, and kill them. There is time today. Modi Ji and Amit Shah won’t come to save you tomorrow.” Other leaders from the party likened Shaheen Bagh to Pakistan and framed the Delhi election as a contest between India and Pakistan.

Mr. Kejriwal spoke against the citizenship law, calling it a distraction from Mr. Modi’s failure on the economy, but assiduously avoided confronting the Hindu nationalist rhetoric during the elections and ignored the attacks on Muslims.

When the police entered Jamia Milia Islamia and attacked the students, Mr. Kejriwal stayed silent for several days. When asked about the protests in Delhi, he declared that he would have cleared the road through Shaheen Bagh in two hours if the police in Delhi, which reports to the federal government, were under his control.

To emphasize his being a Hindu, Mr. Kejriwal publicly sang Hindu religious prayers and visited a temple soon after his victory speech. Essentially, he worked around the boundaries set by the Hindu nationalists and embraced a softer version of their politics.

The Delhi election suggests that India has entered an era where the ideological terms and the language of politics are set by the Hindu nationalists. To be electorally competitive, political parties will need to adhere to some variant of the Hindu nationalism and jingoism exemplified by Mr. Modi.

The “Modi consensus” has ensured that India’s Muslims are not only politically powerless but also politically invisible. Seventy-three years after independence, India’s Muslims are still fighting for equal citizenship. We are now putting our lives on the line, not to gain parity in jobs and education but to hold on to legal equality.

The protests against the new citizenship law have the air of a final cry to salvage our dignity before we are made second-class citizens, or worse, noncitizens.

In an election, while most citizens vote for material benefits and aspirations, India’s Muslims are reduced to voting for their security. Despite Mr. Kejriwal and his A.A.P.’s sidestepping the issues concerning Muslims, Delhi’s Muslims overwhelminglybacked his party because it is not actively hostile to them.

To interpret defeat of Mr. Modi’s party in Delhi with his project of Hindu majoritarianism would be a grave misreading of the verdict. In a recent survey, four-fifths of Delhi’s voters favored Mr. Modi and three-fourths of Delhi’s voters expressed satisfaction with his federal government.

It is unclear whether Mr. Kejriwal’s model of good governance and service delivery while ignoring the contentious sectarian and militant nationalist positions of the Hindu nationalists can be replicated outside the relatively small, urban state of Delhi.

Since its inception, the Hindu nationalist movement, of which the B.J.P. is the electoral branch, had a single goal: Hindu supremacy. There are no politicians who have the gumption to challenge Mr. Modi and his B.J.P. on that central vision. Mr. Modi and his party might lose the occasional election but they have won the ideological war.

Source: Modi Lost the Delhi Election. It Doesn’t Matter.

Filed under Citizenship, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

John Oliver on “Petrifying” Process of Becoming a U.S. Citizen

2020/02/13 Leave a comment

One of the great levellers that brings different people together.

Even celebrities have to go through the standard process (when I was posted to LA, the consular staff regularly had to help the Canadian Hollywood crowd with their passport renewals):

John Oliver opened up about becoming a U.S. citizen when he stopped by CBS’ The Late Show With Stephen Colbert on Monday.

The Last Week Tonight host made a grand entrance and was carried onto the stage by four shirtless men dressed as Uncle Sam. “Yankee Doodle” played as Oliver shot a shirt out of a cannon. The theatrical entrance follows Jim Carrey’s appearance last week, in which Carrey parade onto the stage with a New Orleans-style second line band in tow and a purple umbrella in hand.

While talking to host Stephen Colbert, Oliver admitted that his journey to becoming a U.S. citizen has been a long time coming. “I came here in 2006, and so I’ve kind of been wanting this to happen pretty soon after that, so it’s been over a decade,” he said.

Oliver recapped the process, which included having to “go through a number of visas. I had to go through a green card, then I started applying for citizenship and now it takes longer because there’s sand in the gears of the system.” After his first green card expired, he had to apply for a second one.

Oliver said that the process was “unbelievably tense,” but added that he’s “incredible relieved” to now be a legal U.S. citizen.

He later explained the testing process, which includes “a hundred different questions and they kind of select 10 of them to fire at you.” Some examples of the questions Oliver could have been asked included naming state capitals and identifying the president.

“It’s incredibly nerve-wracking and the first question they asked me was, ‘What is your phone number?’ And I was so scared, I forgot,” he said. “She said, ‘Okay, let me just check your Social Security number,’ and I went, ‘I don’t know what that is, either. Oh, this isn’t going at all well.’ It was utterly petrifying.”

Oliver admitted to being “anxious” about becoming a citizen for over a decade. “Even the day of the ceremony, I kind of thought it was going to be a trap. There was part of me that literally thought they would open the door and there’d just be plastic sheeting on the ground like in Goodfellas and just Jared Kushner sitting in a swivel chair stroking a hairless cat,” he said. “That would’ve made more sense to me than the thing I wanted happening.”

When asked if he had to renounce the queen, Oliver responded, “I did that years ago, anyway.”

He then spoke about the “incredibly moving” experience of seeing other people become U.S. citizens during the ceremony. “It was 150 people from 49 different countries. All of us had been waiting a long time for this,” said Oliver. “There’s something very inspiring about the idea of these people choosing America — not just choosing America, but choosing America now when the country’s not at its best.

“Choosing America now is like falling in love with someone who’s vomiting all over themselves,” he continued. “‘I’m taking a flier. There’s a great human being under here.'”

The HBO host added, “It was very inspiring to watch people buy into the idea of America, which obviously outlasts any president. The idea is still sound.”

Oliver previously spoke about becoming a U.S. citizen in a recent Hollywood Reporter cover story. “The feeling you get at the end of that process is overwhelming relief,” he said during the interview. “And that it’s nothing to do with the current president.”

Source: John Oliver on “Petrifying” Process of Becoming a U.S. Citizen

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with ,

IRCC Minister commends Richmond council for tackling birth tourism

2020/02/13 2 Comments

No signalling of change or new studies or initiatives as expected (need to await the results of the IRCC, CIHI, StatsCan analysis of those non-resident self-pay on visitor visas compared to other temporary residents):

Marco Mendicino, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, told the Richmond News the federal government wants to “weed out” abuses of the immigration system, but he added the principle of “jus soli” – birthright citizenship – has served Canada well.

Birthright citizenship has been in existence in Canada since 1947 and it is also a common practise in other countries, like the U.S. and some Commonwealth countries, Mendicino pointed out.

“There are families who do come to Canada and do avail themselves of this principle and they’re able to bestow upon their children Canadian citizenship as a result of this principle – along with that a number of rights and privileges,” he said, adding “it’s a principle that has absolutely served the country well.”

But Richmond has become known as the “epicentre” of birth tourism, attracting people who come to give birth here in order to secure Canadian citizenship for their baby. In the past year, 23 per cent of babies born at Richmond Hospital were born to non-residents.

Several businesses advertise – exclusively in the Chinese language – for birth tourism services, saying they will provide accommodations for pregnant women and help with after-care and paperwork.

Richmond council passed a motion on Monday to push the minister to end automatic citizenship for babies born to non-residents.

Mendicino said he “commends” the mayor and council of Richmond for having a discussion about the birth tourism and he will reflect on the motion that was passed. The issue needs to be monitored and tracked “very closely,” he said.

“I think we should express some gratitude to the City of Richmond and the council for examining the issue and advocating what the issues are within the context of the concern,” he said. “It’s more about determining and finding where the abuses are within the system rather than getting rid of the principle.”

Mendicino said the federal government is taking “concrete steps” to strengthen the oversight of immigration consultants “to really hold accountable any individuals who are trying to backdoor or take advantage of the system.”

He added the federal government wants to work with provincial partners and municipalities like Richmond to “weed out any abuse of our immigration system.”

There was a level of frustration at Richmond council on Monday – directed somewhat at Vancouver Coastal Health, the provincial government and the federal government – as councillors debated the merits and wording of a letter to push the federal minister of immigration to tackle birth tourism.

Voting against the motion were Couns. Alexa Loo, Kelly Greene and Michael Wolfe.

While Greene said she’s 100 per cent against birth tourism, she felt the motion was worded so that it could cause “disproportionate harm” to “vulnerable people such as refugees and stateless people.”

She said the harm would be exclusively to people of colour and she didn’t want to see at-risk people further marginalized.

“The motion should be to stop birth tourism,” Greene said. “It’s not – it asks to stop birthright citizenship for a broad swath of people.”

Coun. Bill McNulty said he sees birth tourism in his neighbourhood and called on senior governments to take action.

“I think this is an issue that really has put us in a vulnerable position – the two levels of government are totally out of touch with what’s happening in the communities,” McNulty said.

He also suggested the city needs to push Vancouver Coastal Health into action, considering 66 per cent of non-resident births in B.C. take place at Richmond Hospital.

Au echoed the sentiment that VCH should look into the issue, saying the health authority is “not willing to touch this.”

However, VCH spokesperson Catherine Loiacono pointed out this is a federal issue and health care professionals have a duty to provide care to anyone who needs it.
“Care is always triaged according to the safety of the mother and baby – mothers needing immediate care are seen first,” she added.

Nursing baseline staffing is based on patient volumes – not on census data. A staffing review in 2019 found that Richmond Hospital is staffed “appropriately” for patient safety and quality care, Loiacono said. Because the nature of giving birth is unpredictable, if there are increased numbers of patients, more resources are brought in, she added.

Source: Minister commends Richmond council for tackling birth tourism

Filed under Birth Tourism, Birthright Citizenship, Citizenship Tagged with , ,

Taking Away Citizenship as a Counterterrorism Tool Is Fraught with Challenges

2020/02/13 2 Comments

Phil Gurski, from the security perspective:

Citizenship is an important part of the modern world. Most of us are a citizen of at least one country. Having citizenship confers special privileges: the right to vote, the right to receive certain social assistance, the right to work, and a feeling of belonging. It should not be dismissed or used frivolously.

A lot of countries also grant citizenship to those who emigrate from their homelands to a new one (sometimes called ‘naturalized’). This process often takes some time – years in most cases – and is accompanied by all sorts of checks and reviews. After all, no state wants to bring in people with shady backgrounds who are capable of causing mayhem once they become ‘one of us.’

In my experience in Canada, the citizenship pathway is as good as it can be. The necessary agencies, including intelligence and law enforcement, are part of the decision-making process, ensuring to the greatest degree possible that we prevent ‘undesirables’ from making their new home in our nation. Is the system perfect? No, but it is very robust.

Under what conditions, then, should citizenship be revoked? We should assume here that the only type that can be removed is that which has been granted by the state: ordinarily those born in a country automatically receive it at birth (children of foreign diplomats may be an exception), and it far from clear whether there is anything that could – or should – lead a state to rescind birth citizenship (NB Canada is currently dealing with the phenomenon of ‘birth tourism’ whereby pregnant women, often from Asia, travel to give birth in Canadian hospitals. Where all this goes is under debate now.)

Modern terrorism has thrown a wrench into all this. In hundreds of countries citizens have radicalized to violence in accordance with an ideology, left the confines of their homeland, joined a group abroad and become part of it, committed atrocities in the group’s name on occasion and eventually seek to come home. Not surprisingly, few states want these individuals back as they could very well organize or commit acts of terrorism in their backyards. What can we do to prevent their return?

Under these circumstances, is citizenship revocation OK? Normally, no. Our governments take away what they have granted only if it can be demonstrated the process in place at the time of application was fraudulent. In other words, if so-and-so lied on a form and tried to hide certain facts from those investigating the claim, that application can be subsequently voided. This should not be controversial as all the relevant facts were not made available when needed and as a result the individual does not deserve to become one of us.

What, then, do we do in cases of terrorists, some of whom were born in our countries, some of whom got citizenship after having moved, but became terrorists later (sometime much, much later)? After all, the vast majority of terrorists are made not born. Can we take away their birthright/gift?

In the former case, no. Few if any countries have tried to do this and where they have they have tied themselves in legal knots. The UK has taken away the citizenship of ISIS member Shamima Begum despite the inconvenient fact that she was born in England. The government has tried to argue that she is ‘entitled’ to Bangladeshi citizenship as her ancestry lies in that country; hence, she has not been rendered stateless. Bangladesh sees the matter quite differently.

Then we have the case of Iyman Faris, an al-Qaeda terrorist who was found guilty and sentenced in 2003 for his role in a plot to cut the cables on the Brooklyn Bridge. A federal judge in Columbus, Ohio, stripped him of his naturalized U.S. citizenship after ruling that he had lied on immigration papers before becoming a citizen in 1999 (he entered the U.S. using the passport and visa of someone he’d met in Bosnia). The official also ruled that Faris’ terrorist affiliations demonstrated a lack of commitment to the U.S. Constitution.

Two years earlier another judge had rejected a similar request by the government, saying at the time there wasn’t enough evidence to prove Mr. Faris’ misrepresentations influenced the decision to grant him citizenship.

Where does this leave us? In a legal quandary, that’s where. The UK handling of Ms. Begum beggars disbelief as she is the citizen of one and only one country. The U.S. strategy in the case of Faris suggests that anyone who does anything illegal at any point in their life is at risk of having their citizenship clawed back. Neither case is ideal.

The bottom line is that Ms. Begum, and perhaps Mr. Faris, were radicalized where they lived and worked. They are a product of a part of our society – not a proud part, but a part nonetheless. Recalling citizenship merely displaces the problem: it does not solve it.

Source: https://www.hstoday.us/subject-matter-areas/counterterrorism/perspective-taking-away-citizenship-as-a-counterterrorism-tool-is-fraught-with-challenges/

Filed under Citizenship, Radicalization, Revocation Tagged with

Australia Can’t Deport Indigenous Aboriginal People, Court Rules

2020/02/12 Leave a comment

Would appear to have been self-evident!

Australia’s highest court ruled Tuesday the government can’t deport Aboriginal people as part of its policy of ridding the country of foreign criminals.

The High Court ruled in a 4-3 decision that indigenous Australians cannot be deported even if they do not hold Australian citizenship.

The court had heard the case of two men who were born overseas but identified as being from indigenous tribes.

The government attempted to deport them after they served prison sentences for violent crimes. The government has been criticized for deporting some criminals who have lived in Australia since where were children but had never become citizens.

The court found that Brendan Thoms, 31, who was born in New Zealand to an indigenous Australian mother, was an Aboriginal Australian.

Thoms had lived in Australia since he was 6, is accepted as a member of the Gunggari tribe and is recognized as a native title holder of their traditional land.

But a majority of judges was not convinced that Daniel Love, 40, was indigenous and was accepted as a member of the Kamilaroi tribe.

He was born in Papua New Guinea to an indigenous Australian father and has lived in Australia since he was 5.

His lawyers say he will provide more evidence of his Aboriginality and another trial could be held to decide the issue.

Both Love and Thoms were placed in immigration detention and threatened with deportation on their release from prison after serving sentences for unrelated crimes.

Love has had his visa restored since his lawyers initiated court action and lives on the Gold Coast.

Thoms has been in immigration detention in Brisbane for the 16 months since he completed a six-month prison sentence.

Their lawyer Claire Gibbs demanded that Thoms be immediately released.

“He’s very anxious to be released and to be reunited with his family after all this time,” Gibbs said outside court.

“The High Court has found that Aboriginal Australians are protected from deportation. They can no longer be removed from the country that they know and that they have a very close connection with,” she added.

The Home Affairs Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Gibbs said both Love and Thoms would sue the government for wrongful detention.

“Both of my clients have suffered severe embarrassment about being Aboriginal men in immigration detention and they’ve been subject to a lot of ridicule,” Gibbs said. “So it’s been a very, very tough time for them both.”

The court found Aboriginal Australian have a special cultural, historic and spiritual connection to Australia which is inconsistent with them being considered “aliens” in the meaning of the Australian constitution.

Indigenous Australians make up 3% of the population and are the most disadvantaged minority group in a range of measures. Indigenous Australians die younger than other Australians and are overrepresented in prisons.

Source: Australia Can’t Deport Indigenous Aboriginal People, Court Rules

Filed under Aboriginal, Citizenship Tagged with ,

Nuance needed when it comes to citizenship in the modern world

2020/02/06 2 Comments

Some similar questions regarding Canadian policy and consular obligations with the Canadian tendency to more inclusive approaches as seen in the government’s response to the Ukraine International shoot down and Iranian Canadians and the evacuation of Chinese Canadians, including some permanent residents to keep families together, from Wuhan:

While the initial debate about the Australians in Wuhan has focussed on details such as whether or not evacuees would (or should) pay something towards the cost of the flights, and whether the controversial immigration detention facility at Christmas Island is the appropriate housing area for quarantine, another curious matter sits in the background. What is our country’s responsibility, if any, for evacuating citizens, permanent residents and others from the site of a pandemic, or other crisis overseas? And what does citizenship mean in these circumstances?

Australia has a curious relationship with citizenship. As a migrant country, Australia has long seen citizenship as a key pillar of our economic policy: attracting people from around the world to join the population, offering a better life in return for enhancing the nation’s future prosperity.

But citizenship is not always a simple, one-way story that ends with life in Australia and single Australian citizenship. And the dynamic of multiple citizenships in the modern world means that migrants and refugees might not just stay put in Australia, but may split residence between countries.

The legal term of Australian citizenship is only 70 years old. It was established in 1948, with Australians remaining British subjects – a status that was removed only in 1984. From 1986, dual citizenship was established, with people from other countries allowed to take up Australian citizenship and retain their original nationality. It was only in 2002, that Australian citizens were allowed – under Australian law – to assume citizenship of another country without first renouncing their Australian citizenship.

Some 33.3 per cent of Australians were born overseas, which provides one indication of some of numbers possibly at play with multiple citizenship.

But outside economic policy, changes in citizenship law in Australia and overseas, and changes in an increasingly complex strategic environment, have thrown up some thorny problems. The 2017 federal parliamentarian citizenship crisis and the fate of the children of Australians who travelled to the Middle East to join the self-proclaimed Islamic State are recent examples.

Reporting around the coronavirus outbreak, with headlines such as “Aussie kids trapped in Wuhan”, show a simplistic perception of citizenship. It suggests those affected only hold Australian citizenship and have been inadvertently caught in a crisis overseas and need the help of their government. The reality is often more complex, with many dual or other multiple citizenship holders affected by this and other crises. Some of those Aussie kids are also Chinese. As are their parents. They may be long-term residents of Wuhan or on a first visit to family.

And as longstanding government policy – easily found on DFAT’s Smartraveller website – makes clear, it is an individual’s responsibility, not government’s, to manage their own safety and well being when overseas. In the case of the current outbreak, however, the government has done the right thing in enabling those Australians who wish to leave to do so.

Despite the sometimes-changeable nature of Australia’s bilateral relationship with China in recent years, the movement of Australians, including dual-nationals, out of China has not presented as an issue.

But this latest experience throws in to question what we do in the future. Do we need a more nuanced approach to how we deal with dual nationals located in their other home countries?

Do the challenges of conflict, pandemics, and strategic tension in our region and in the rise of non-traditional threats such as global terrorism, mean that we need to maintain awareness not only of how migration affects economic development and jobs, but also how it affects security. As the coronavirus reminds us, this includes health security.

Perhaps now is the time to talk with countries such as China, India and the Philippines, which many Australians also call home, about a shared approach to how we each look after our shared citizens in health and other crises.

We have arrangements with Canada, New Zealand and other countries on reciprocal assistance evacuating our citizens from conflict areas, natural disasters and other emergencies. The coronavirus could be a useful reference for similar discussions on deciding when it’s appropriate for Australian dual nationals to remain in country, and how all countries involved can work together to ensure the best assistance is provided in place.

The recent establishment of the Home Affairs portfolio to include immigration along with security, emergency management and other roles, and raising it to a central agency of government, means that we have the policy levers to consider how migration and citizenship works with security and other roles.

A future Home Affairs White Paper could provide strategic direction on where and how Australian citizenship and immigration could and should support how Australia engages globally.

Regardless of government policy, we need better awareness within our community of what citizenship currently looks like, and what our policy settings are, in order to better inform the public discussion of what we expect our government to do for our citizens, wherever they chose to be around the world. Here, the media plays a pivotal role in explaining what’s going on, and ensuring we don’t fall into a simplistic representation of Australians.

Australia’s success is due in part to the continual change in what it is to be Australian, and what constitutes Australian interests. But as we deal with complex challenges, like coronavirus, we need to be mindful that what it is to be Australian is not always simple.

Source: Nuance needed when it comes to citizenship in the modern world

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with ,

Richmond council asks feds to ban birth tourism

2020/02/06 Leave a comment

More from the epicentre. Good that they are also looking at possible local approaches:

Richmond city council wants the new federal minister of immigration to tackle the problem of birth tourism.

A motion by Coun. Carol Day to write to Marco Mendicino, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, urging him to end birthright citizenship for non-Canadians was supported by almost all of council at Monday’s committee meeting.

In the meantime, city staff are fining birth tourism operators on any illegal activity they may be running – but because there is no business license for birth tourism, they can’t be shut down for advertising birth tourism services, explained Cecelia Achiam, general manager of community safety.

“We do not regulate something that we could not approve, so birth tourism is not something that we could regulate at this point,” Achiam said.

This was challenged by the mayor, Malcolm Brodie, however, at the meeting, and he asked staff to find out whether it is possible to shut them down based on the fact they are an illegal business.

“If they’re doing something that’s unlicensed and not allowed, you’re telling me you can’t do anything about it – surely it’s operating a business without a license,” Brodie said.

Currently, staff will fine any activity advertised by birth tourism services if they don’t have a license, explained Achiam, for example, if they advertise tutoring services, the city can fine them if they don’t have a business license for tutoring – or if they advertise food services and airport pickup/dropoff services without the correct licenses.

The motion passed by council was to write to the new minister to ask for “immediate permanent changes” to end automatic citizenship for babies born in Canada to non-resident, non-Canadian parents.

Greene pointed out that staffing at Richmond Hospital is based on census data, but this would not take into account the quarter of the total number of births that are to non-residents.

“We’re definitely seeing service impacts – I’ve personally been impacted,” Greene said.

Of the countries that have birthright citizenship, North America is a desirable destination, she said, but this is something the “ultra-rich” only can do.

“It feels really unfair and it doesn’t feel right to shop for your citizenship,” Greene said.

Greene also criticized MLA Jas Johal for praising the U.S. government move to ban pregnant women from getting tourist visas, something Greene called “policing women” by profiling them if they’re pregnant when applying for a tourist visa.

The U.S. State Department put in rules more than a week ago that banned women who were pregnant fromgetting tourist visas to the U.S.

Greene called this a “horrifying violation of human rights.”

She said she wants the letter to reflect that Richmond wants to end a practise where “people essentially buy their citizenship so that we’re never ever in a situation where we’re policing women’s bodies.”

Greene also called for an amendment that talked about changes not affecting vulnerable and stateless people but this didn’t pass.

Coun. Bill McNulty said the accommodation rules need to be revisited, because birth tourist stays don’t fall under short-term rentals, rather the provincially regulated long-term rentals.

“I think there are many loopholes to be closed and I think the city can close some of them within our community,” he said.

This was reiterated by Coun. Harold Steves who suggested long-term rentals for birth tourism are actually turning homes into hotels.

McNulty also suggested sending the letter to all MPs in Canada since it’s a federal issue.

“If you want something to be done at the federal level … I think we have to let everybody know,” he said.

Greene was the only councillor who voted against the motion.

Mendicino did not return repeated requests from the Richmond News for an interview.

Filed under Birth Tourism, Birthright Citizenship, Citizenship Tagged with ,

Why Canada should end our unfair birth-tourism policies: Gary Mason

2020/02/01 2 Comments

The latest commentary:

Last week, the U.S. State Department began enforcing new rules limiting the travel of women coming to the country for the primary reason of giving birth.

This is a response to President Donald Trump’s long-pledged promise to end the policy, which bestows automatic American citizenship on newborns. So-called birth tourism is also seen as a backdoor way of making it easier for the child’s parents to one day become U.S. citizens themselves.

Of course, this is not a phenomenon unique to the U.S. We have been experiencing the same issue here, and now B.C. politicians are worried that Mr. Trump’s new enforcement measures will mean an even greater number of foreigners will turn to Canada as an ever-accommodating alternative.

The city of Richmond, B.C., just outside of Vancouver, has become a prime destination, especially for visitors from China. An unsavoury industry has built up around the facilitation of those wanting to come here to give birth. These outfits offer a one-stop shopping experience, which includes a “guarantee” that pregnant women will get through customs with the proper paperwork. These women, and anyone travelling with them, are coached on what to say when interviewed by border agents.

In their advertisements, these companies outline a long list of benefits of giving birth in Canada including the fact the country provides free education before university, free health care and, that once the child reaches the age of 18, he or she can apply to sponsor their parents to immigrate to the country. The advantages to instant citizenship go on and on. All interested parties need is the tens of thousands of dollars that these shysters are charging.

“We’ve basically put a price on Canadian citizenship,” said Jas Johal, a provincial Liberal MLA from Richmond. “These individuals are paying $80,000 so their child is guaranteed a Canadian passport.

“This is an elite, global, moneyed class that has found a loophole and are working the system. These are not your typical hard-working immigrants who built this country.”

Recent numbers tell the story: Between April 1, 2018, and Feb. 7, 2019, there were 389 births to non-resident mothers at Richmond Hospital. The year before, there were 474 and the year before that, 383. “It’s a stark reminder that our hospital has turned into a passport mill,” Mr. Johal told me.

According to an investigation conducted for the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, a non-partisan research group, a few years ago, there were 3,223 births by non-residents in Canadian hospitals in 2016 – excluding Quebec. In 2018, the number had jumped to more than 4,000.

The head of Doctors of BC, Kathleen Ross, has spoken out about the issue, saying the practice is straining resources. Some hospitals have been put in a difficult situation in which they have no choice but to deliver the child of a foreign patient even when coverage for the procedure is in doubt. Some doctors have ended up being short-changed for their services.

Some people have suggested that the uproar over birth tourism is overblown, that the numbers aren’t overwhelming. Of course, that misses the point entirely. Whether it’s one person or 4,000, people shouldn’t be able to effectively buy citizenship in this country, shouldn’t be able to scam their way in front of those who have been waiting to get citizenship legally.

Federal politicians Liberal MP Joe Peschisolido and Conservative MP Alice Wong, who both represent ridings in Richmond, have tabled petitions in the House of Commons calling for action. So far, the federal Liberals have been reluctant to do much about the matter.

Mr. Johal believes the crackdown by the Trump administration is only going to make the situation here even more acute. He thinks the solution is simple: Enact a law that says anybody who comes to Canada on a tourist visa and gives birth, will not automatically be eligible for Canadian citizenship.

The federal Conservatives have proposed legislation that eliminates birthright citizenship unless one of the parents of the child born here is a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident. They’ve also suggested stricter visa requirements, in the first place, for people coming in from other countries in late stages of pregnancy.

Those proposals don’t seem radical to me. Nor do they seem racist or nativist. This is not about blocking foreigners from coming to Canada, or restricting immigrants from building a new life here. This is about fairness, plain and simple.

Several countries have changed their citizenship laws to end the practice of birth tourism, including Britain, New Zealand, France and Germany. It’s long past time that we, too, put an end to a practice that is both deceitful and unscrupulous.

Source: Why Canada should end our unfair birth-tourism policies

Filed under Birth Tourism, Birthright Citizenship, Citizenship Tagged with ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →