>The Conservatives are warning that a bill to confer citizenship to people born abroad to foreign-born Canadians will cheapen the value of citizenship. They say it could open the door to ”Canadians of convenience” who want a passport but have little connection to the country.
>With support from the Bloc Québécois, the Conservatives added amendments to Bill C-3 that would make it harder for these “Lost Canadians” to qualify for passports. A vote on the revised bill is expected soon.
>At first glance, tightening the criteria for having a “substantial connection” to Canada and adding requirements for adult children to pass language, security and citizenship tests seems to make sense. But while some of the Conservative amendments are sound, others are unworkable.
>Bill C-3 aims to reverse a law passed in 2009 by Stephen Harper’s Conservatives that prevented second-generation children born abroad to Canadians from getting citizenship. Mr. Harper’s law was passed after the federal government spent $85-million evacuating Canadians in Lebanon in 2006, including thousands who were not residents of Canada.
>[…]
>Last month, the Conservatives, supported by the Bloc, added an amendment in committee to change the requirement that in order to pass on citizenship, a foreign-born Canadian needs to spend 1,095 cumulative days in Canada before the child is born or adopted. The Conservative change would require the parent to spend 1,095 days in Canada within a five-year period. This revision makes sense, as it means these individuals have truly lived here, rather than just spent a few weeks at their grandparents’ cottage each summer. It demonstrates a more meaningful connection with Canada, and administratively, it will be easier to prove.
>The Conservative amendments would also require a report to Parliament annually on how many new citizens the bill creates. This is a sensible requirement.
>The problems lie with the Conservatives’ addition of an English or French language test, a security screening for criminal activity, and a citizenship test demonstrating knowledge of Canadian history. These requirements are similar to those needed by immigrants applying for citizenship, so it sounds logical – but it confuses the issue.
>Canadians by descent get their citizenship at birth based on their parents’ status. Presumably, under the Conservative rules, if these people applied as adults for citizenship certificates or passports and failed the tests, they could be stripped of their citizenship. Uyen Hoang, director-general of the citizenship branch at the Immigration Department, has warned that the tests would be “impossible to operationalize.”
>These tests would create a second class of citizens, as they aren’t required for people born in Canada, or the first generation born abroad. They could result in more “Lost Canadians” and lead to another court challenge, resulting in more uncertainty for the families involved.
>The issue of Canadians of convenience is a real one, and we don’t want a flood of Canadians-on-paper-only tapping into our resources without having a genuine connection to the country. But this threat is not so dire that it’s worth creating a new category of sort-of citizens rife with its own problems.
>The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated that reinstating rights for these “Lost Canadians” could create 115,000 new citizens over five years. The real numbers could be lower. Previous rule changes to accommodate other categories of Lost Canadians resulted in around 20,000 people applying for proof of citizenship between 2009 and 2015.
>The last few years have shown that the Liberals have blind spots on immigration; they would do well to heed Conservative input in committees. As for the Conservatives, they have a point about tightening up the rules for citizenship – but they should ensure their solutions are practical, and aren’t just right-wing virtue signalling to shore up their base.
!ping Can&Immigration
erin_burr on
The idea of citizenship by descent for an indefinite number of generations is a bit at odds with new world ideas of a civic, not ethnic, nation. At some level, living here among us is part of being one of us. I’m not a Brazilian, or a Pole, or a Russian just because those are places my ancestors lived.
In my country (USA), citizenship by descent is limited to 1 generation requires one citizen parent to have 5 years living here including 2 years after the age of 14.
2 Comments
Archived version: [https://archive.fo/u4dLo](https://archive.fo/u4dLo).
>The Conservatives are warning that a bill to confer citizenship to people born abroad to foreign-born Canadians will cheapen the value of citizenship. They say it could open the door to ”Canadians of convenience” who want a passport but have little connection to the country.
>With support from the Bloc Québécois, the Conservatives added amendments to Bill C-3 that would make it harder for these “Lost Canadians” to qualify for passports. A vote on the revised bill is expected soon.
>At first glance, tightening the criteria for having a “substantial connection” to Canada and adding requirements for adult children to pass language, security and citizenship tests seems to make sense. But while some of the Conservative amendments are sound, others are unworkable.
>Bill C-3 aims to reverse a law passed in 2009 by Stephen Harper’s Conservatives that prevented second-generation children born abroad to Canadians from getting citizenship. Mr. Harper’s law was passed after the federal government spent $85-million evacuating Canadians in Lebanon in 2006, including thousands who were not residents of Canada.
>[…]
>Last month, the Conservatives, supported by the Bloc, added an amendment in committee to change the requirement that in order to pass on citizenship, a foreign-born Canadian needs to spend 1,095 cumulative days in Canada before the child is born or adopted. The Conservative change would require the parent to spend 1,095 days in Canada within a five-year period. This revision makes sense, as it means these individuals have truly lived here, rather than just spent a few weeks at their grandparents’ cottage each summer. It demonstrates a more meaningful connection with Canada, and administratively, it will be easier to prove.
>The Conservative amendments would also require a report to Parliament annually on how many new citizens the bill creates. This is a sensible requirement.
>The problems lie with the Conservatives’ addition of an English or French language test, a security screening for criminal activity, and a citizenship test demonstrating knowledge of Canadian history. These requirements are similar to those needed by immigrants applying for citizenship, so it sounds logical – but it confuses the issue.
>Canadians by descent get their citizenship at birth based on their parents’ status. Presumably, under the Conservative rules, if these people applied as adults for citizenship certificates or passports and failed the tests, they could be stripped of their citizenship. Uyen Hoang, director-general of the citizenship branch at the Immigration Department, has warned that the tests would be “impossible to operationalize.”
>These tests would create a second class of citizens, as they aren’t required for people born in Canada, or the first generation born abroad. They could result in more “Lost Canadians” and lead to another court challenge, resulting in more uncertainty for the families involved.
>The issue of Canadians of convenience is a real one, and we don’t want a flood of Canadians-on-paper-only tapping into our resources without having a genuine connection to the country. But this threat is not so dire that it’s worth creating a new category of sort-of citizens rife with its own problems.
>The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated that reinstating rights for these “Lost Canadians” could create 115,000 new citizens over five years. The real numbers could be lower. Previous rule changes to accommodate other categories of Lost Canadians resulted in around 20,000 people applying for proof of citizenship between 2009 and 2015.
>The last few years have shown that the Liberals have blind spots on immigration; they would do well to heed Conservative input in committees. As for the Conservatives, they have a point about tightening up the rules for citizenship – but they should ensure their solutions are practical, and aren’t just right-wing virtue signalling to shore up their base.
!ping Can&Immigration
The idea of citizenship by descent for an indefinite number of generations is a bit at odds with new world ideas of a civic, not ethnic, nation. At some level, living here among us is part of being one of us. I’m not a Brazilian, or a Pole, or a Russian just because those are places my ancestors lived.
In my country (USA), citizenship by descent is limited to 1 generation requires one citizen parent to have 5 years living here including 2 years after the age of 14.