Major Canadian citizenship reform bill coming

[Moonlight Graham]

From CBC and National Post::

The Canadian government is proposing sweeping changes today in what is being called "the first comprehensive reform to the Citizenship Act in more than a generation​."

Canadians convicted of terrorism, espionage or treason, or who take up arms against Canada, would be stripped of their citizenship — provided they are “dual nationals,” meaning they have citizenship in another country.

The key changes:

• Fees for citizenship applications will increase to $300 from $100. By comparison, fees are $670 in the United States and $1,600 in the United Kingdom.
• Only immigrants who have been physically present in Canada four of the past six years would quality for citizenship. Time spent in Canada without permanent resident status would no longer count towards citizenship.
• Those applying for citizenship must file Canadian income taxes, which is not currently a requirement.
• Applicants 14-65 must pass the language and knowledge test, which will be administered in English or French. Currently only applicants 18-54 must do so, and they may take the knowledge test with an interpreter.
• Penalties for fraud will increase to a maximum of $100,000 and five years in prison (from $1,000 and one year).
• Permanent residents serving in the Canadian Armed Forces would qualify for citizenship one year sooner than other applicants.

The proposed legislation would streamline the application process by allowing citizenship officers to make decisions on applications, something only citizenship judges can do now.

Alexander said this would help to reduce the backlog which currently stands at 320,000 applications. The government hopes to reduce the wait time from two to three years, to less than a year by 2015-16.

The immigration minister would have the final say in decisions to revoke citizenship, not the governor in council, as is the case now.

One of the new measures would require those seeking citizenship to sign a declaration confirming that they will reside in Canada. “The purpose is really to signal that Canadian citizenship is for people who intend to live in Canada and make Canada their home,” an official told reporters at a briefing.

I agree with most of these changes, except for citizenship officers & gov ministers having final say over revoking/approving citizenship. I think judges are better suited for those decisions, because they are legal and not political decisions. It would set a dangerous precedent for increasing power of government on citizenship matters.

Also, revoking citizenship for certain serious crimes is a very controversial measure I'm not sure i agree with or not. It would turn immigrants into 2nd-class citizens in a respect.

But the tougher hurdles, especially resident requirements, to become a citizen is a welcome change. your thoughts?

[cybercoma]

For a party that is supposed to decentralize power, they spend an awful lot of time seizing more of it. Revoking citizenship power from the governor in council is absurd and putting decisions that are now made by judges into the hands of bureaucrats is even more idiotic. Also, I get where the declaration that they will reside in Canada thing is coming from; however, that's not something that is demanded of any other Canadian citizens. I'm no required to reside in Canada, so why should someone who gets citizenship later? They should all the same rights and responsibilities as every other citizen. No more and no less. More short-sighted legislation that they won't even bother debating then have their lackeys in the Senate pencil whip it.

[overthere]

"•Applicants 14-65 must pass the language and knowledge test, which will be administered in English or French. Currently only applicants 18-54 must do so, and they may take the knowledge test with an interpreter.

"

this will result in a might hue and cry of RACISM!!!

The people most affected will be the parents abd relatives on family reunification programs. They'll need to speak an official lanaguage now to get a Canuckistan passport.

I agree with cybercoma that the requirement to reside in Canada is not right, there are no degrees of equality and every citizen should have equal rights.

[Argus]

I agree with most of them. I think the time needed to apply should be 5 years residency, not 4, however. And I FULLY support the requirement they spend most of that time in Canada in order to qualify. If you're not really interested in immigrating to this country then stay where you are and don't bother applying.

I don't see any specific mention of dealing with marriage fraud, which I had hoped to see.

Edited February 7, 2014 by Argus

[guyser]

I don't see any specific mention of dealing with marriage fraud, which I had hoped to see.

Already dealt with.

Its a crime and the one who sponsors this has to pay. I imagine it is a very small number of the total makeup of immigration

[Big Guy]

"The government would also have the ability to revoke citizenship from those who has been "convicted of terrorism, high treason, treason, or spying offences, depending on the sentence received.""

Convicted of terrorism by and in which countries? If Canada only then I agree - if not, then we would be accepting the decisions of foreign courts. What if the Russians convict "in absentia" a whole bunch of people who are currently in Canada but trying to get freedom for their compatriots back home? What about refugees from Egypt or Iraq or Iran or ... who have been convicted of "treason" in their home country for fighting for freedom and democracy?

[Keepitsimple]

I agree with cybercoma that the requirement to reside in Canada is not right, there are no degrees of equality and every citizen should have equal rights.

When they become citizens, they will have equality.....but in order to earn their citizenship, they have to reside here for 4 out of 6 years.

Edited February 7, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[Bryan]

"The government would also have the ability to revoke citizenship from those who has been "convicted of terrorism, high treason, treason, or spying offences, depending on the sentence received.""

Convicted of terrorism by and in which countries? If Canada only then I agree - if not, then we would be accepting the decisions of foreign courts. What if the Russians convict "in absentia" a whole bunch of people who are currently in Canada but trying to get freedom for their compatriots back home? What about refugees from Egypt or Iraq or Iran or ... who have been convicted of "treason" in their home country for fighting for freedom and democracy?

It's worded that we will have the ability to revoke citizenship, not that it automatically happens.

[cybercoma]

I'm not talking about the 4/6 year requirement. I have no problem with that. This quote, however. . .

One of the new measures would require those seeking citizenship to sign a declaration confirming that they will reside in Canada. “The purpose is really to signal that Canadian citizenship is for people who intend to live in Canada and make Canada their home,” an official told reporters at a briefing.

. . .gives one the impression that even after earning their citizenship they're not free to move about as they please. I presume residency requirements for retirement and other social benefits would be the same as for other citizens, so they're already facing penalties for not living in Canada. Those penalties are the same for all Canadian citizens though. What I don't agree with is some arbitrary residency requirement, as opposed to universal ones, after someone gets their citizenship. If it doesn't apply to all citizens, it shouldn't apply to them.

[Remiel]

Anyone who is a member of an indigenous nation (not band, or tribe, but one of the ~60 nations) that straddles the Canada/US border should get an exemption from the language rule. This would be an extreme corner case, as I cannot imagine very many people who fit that definitely do not speak English or French fluently, but it would be both just and I think would be a low cost way to nab a brownie point or two.

[Argus]

Already dealt with.

Its a crime and the one who sponsors this has to pay. I imagine it is a very small number of the total makeup of immigration

I haven't seen it mentioned. Yes, it's a crime, if proven, but I don't believe anyone has ever been charged. The problem is someone marries a Canadian, then leaves them a month or so later. How do you prove the marriage didn't suddenly just break down? The clear way to solve this is that if a marriage breaks down within the first year the newcomer should be sent back home.

[Argus]

I'm not talking about the 4/6 year requirement. I have no problem with that. This quote, however. . .

. . .gives one the impression that even after earning their citizenship they're not free to move about as they please. I presume residency requirements for retirement and other social benefits would be the same as for other citizens, so they're already facing penalties for not living in Canada. Those penalties are the same for all Canadian citizens though. What I don't agree with is some arbitrary residency requirement, as opposed to universal ones, after someone gets their citizenship. If it doesn't apply to all citizens, it shouldn't apply to them.

This measure is clearly meant to deal with situations like the Lebanese, where tens of thousands get Canadian citizenship as a kind of backstop or bolt hole in case something happens there, then simply go back and live there. A ton of Chinese did it, too. This was particularly big when Hong Kong was returned to the Chinese. Tens of thousands got Canadian citizenship and are still happily doing business in Hong Kong. Their Canadian passport is there in case of political emergencies, or medical emergencies. These are not really Canadians in any way, and should not be permitted to obtain and use citizenship in that manner.

[Argus]

I also don't see anything dealing with pregnant foreigners who travel here to give birth, then return home. Those children should not be getting Canadian citizenship.

[Wilber]

I agree with most of it. I have a problem with being able to revoke someone's citizenship without the courts having the final say. Would the rules regarding revoking the citizenship of those holding dual citizenship apply to all dual citizens, including native born Canadians? They should, otherwise we will have two classes of citizen. Also, like Big Guy says, the question of "convicted by who" needs clarifying.

This needs a lot more explanation and discussion so its implications can be crystal clear to everyone.

[Wilber]

This measure is clearly meant to deal with situations like the Lebanese, where tens of thousands get Canadian citizenship as a kind of backstop or bolt hole in case something happens there, then simply go back and live there. A ton of Chinese did it, too. This was particularly big when Hong Kong was returned to the Chinese. Tens of thousands got Canadian citizenship and are still happily doing business in Hong Kong. Their Canadian passport is there in case of political emergencies, or medical emergencies. These are not really Canadians in any way, and should not be permitted to obtain and use citizenship in that manner.

In my opinion, if you hold dual citizenship, the country you are residing in is responsible for you, not your other country of citizenship. If you hold Lebanese citizenship and are in Lebanon, Canada has no responsibility for you.

[cybercoma]

I haven't seen it mentioned. Yes, it's a crime, if proven, but I don't believe anyone has ever been charged. The problem is someone marries a Canadian, then leaves them a month or so later. How do you prove the marriage didn't suddenly just break down? The clear way to solve this is that if a marriage breaks down within the first year the newcomer should be sent back home.

That will potentially force people to endure abusive relationships so they're not deported. This sets up the potential for some very dangerous situations.

[Argus]

That will potentially force people to endure abusive relationships so they're not deported. This sets up the potential for some very dangerous situations.

If the only reason you got in was because you were going to marry this person, and shortly therafter you break up, then you go home. You had no right to come here except for that person. Go home now, please and thank you.

[guyser]

I haven't seen it mentioned. Yes, it's a crime, if proven, but I don't believe anyone has ever been charged. The problem is someone marries a Canadian, then leaves them a month or so later. How do you prove the marriage didn't suddenly just break down? The clear way to solve this is that if a marriage breaks down within the first year the newcomer should be sent back home.

That too is already law.

The sponsoring spouse is still on the hook for any social services rendered, meaning they have to pay it back. I believ it is three years in total.

Now if you want to talk about the lazyness of the govt going after them....well I agree, same with family reunification rules and the non-enforcement of same

[cybercoma]

If the only reason you got in was because you were going to marry this person, and shortly therafter you break up, then you go home. You had no right to come here except for that person. Go home now, please and thank you.

All I'm saying is that there should be an exemption for people who are in abusive situations. They should have a window of opportunity to earn their citizenship another way after the marriage dissolves. If they can't, then send them back. However, deporting them immediately if they divorce within a year will encourage people in abusive situations to remain in them for at least a year to get past that arbitrary benchmark.

[overthere]

When they become citizens, they will have equality.....but in order to earn their citizenship, they have to reside here for 4 out of 6 years.

ah that was not clear, I was quoting "One of the new measures would require those seeking citizenship to sign a declaration confirming that they will reside in Canada. "

I'm still not sure what that means. You apply for citizenship after after several years of permitted residency, not when you first arrive.

Edited February 7, 2014 by overthere

[Big Guy]

Interesting that a modern day Omar Khadr would not be affected. He was born in Canada so could not lose his citizenship. Would someone like Khadr who has been convicted as a terrorist by the United States also be considered a terrorist in Canada? After all, his "crime" was committed against the United States in Afghanistan when Canada was not at "war" against the Taliban.

I do agree that the proposal is to set up a two tiered citizenship system - those who were born here and those who were not.

Why not go all the way?

How about degrees of citizenship;

"A1 Real" Citizen - At least 3rd generation Canadian, white Christian, speaks English and French fluently without an accent, votes Conservative, follows hockey and supports the British monarchy.

"A2" Citizen - Born in Canada, Christian, speaks either English or French fluently. votes Conservative, Liberal or NDP, follows hockey and soccer and accepts the Queen as constitutional monarch of Canada.

"A3" Citizen - Born in Canada, not a Muslim, speaks English, does not bother voting, follows whatever sport is in season and does not understand our political system.

"A4" Citizen - Not born in Canada, not a Christian, understands very little English or French, lives in one of Canada's urban "ethnic ghettoes", does not know democracy from a monarchy or Disneyland.

Furthermore - Only A1 Real citizens have their citizenship guaranteed for life and are allowed to vote. A2, A3 and A4 citizens can have their citizenship revoked and deported at the whim of any Conservative minister.

[Remiel]

I also don't see anything dealing with pregnant foreigners who travel here to give birth, then return home. Those children should not be getting Canadian citizenship.

I understand why you think that this state of affairs is wrong. But I am telling you it is the lesser evil. If we do not accept that people become citizens by being born here than we are opening ourselves up to a world of headaches vis-a-vis indigenous peoples, many of whom would be (and already are) too happy to argue that we do not belong here just because we were born here and live here. That is a can of worms that should just not be opened.

[Argus]

I understand why you think that this state of affairs is wrong. But I am telling you it is the lesser evil. If we do not accept that people become citizens by being born here than we are opening ourselves up to a world of headaches vis-a-vis indigenous peoples, many of whom would be (and already are) too happy to argue that we do not belong here just because we were born here and live here. That is a can of worms that should just not be opened.

I'm not interested in the specious argument aboriginals might make. I'm not a citizen of some unstated aboriginal nation, but of Canada. So I don't see this as a can of worms at all. If neither of your parents are Canadians, or at least landed immigrants, and you don't grow up in Canada, then you don't get Canadian citizenship. That isn't a novel idea, by the way. Lots of countries now have that rule. Canada just hasn't kept up with the times in terms of the ease of international travel.

Edited February 7, 2014 by Argus

[Argus]

Furthermore - Only A1 Real citizens have their citizenship guaranteed for life and are allowed to vote. A2, A3 and A4 citizens can have their citizenship revoked and deported at the whim of any Conservative minister.

I was born in Germany, as my dad was in the air force at the time, and posted there. I have a birth certificate written in German. I do not, however, have German citizenship. I didn't grow up there, you see, so since I was born to foreigners and left soon after, I don't qualify. With respect to Khadr, most of us don't think of him as a Canadian. His parents were technically speaking, Canadians, but clearly they never embraced anything about this country, not its culture, not its people, not its lifestyle. They were Canadians in name only, and soon moved him out of the country to grow up in Pakistan because she didn't want to raise children around Canadians for fear they would be polluted by our lax morals.

You can be as snide as you want about people thinking there are different classes of Canadians, but it doesn't make it any less true. Khadr is Canadian in name only, but in reality, is as Canadian as I am German.

Edited February 7, 2014 by Argus

[Wilber]

Everyone is entitled to a citizenship somewhere. If one was born in Canada and doesn't qualify for citizenship somewhere else, they are Canadian by default. I like the idea that dual citizens could lose one of their citizenships for certain criminal acts and it should apply to all dual citizens regardless of where they were born. Might make people think twice about dual citizenships and the possible consequences of abusing them.

Edited February 8, 2014 by Wilber